POTENTIAL FOR REDUCING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

IN THE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR

FEBRUARY 2009
February 2009

FOR MORE INFORMATION

ABOUT THIS REPORT OR EPA'S SECTOR STRATEGIES PROGRAM

WITH THE CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY, PLEASE CONTACT:

Peter Truitt

National Construction Sector Lead

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Mailcode 1807T)

1200 Pennsylvania Ave, NW

Washington, DC 20460

truitt.peter@epa.gov
February 2009 i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS _________________________________________________ II

INTRODUCTION ________________________________________________________________ 1

1 CHARACTERIZING THE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR’S GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS ______ 3

1.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF EMISSIONS ______________________________________________ 3

Breakdown of Emissions Sources____________________________________________________ 4

Comparing Emissions Estimates_____________________________________________________ 5

Subsector Emissions ________________________________________________________________ 6

Emissions Intensity _________________________________________________________________ 7

1.2 PROJECTIONS OF THE FUTURE GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION____________ 9

2 EVALUATING OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS ___________________________11

2.1 REDUCING FUEL USE _________________________________________________________ 11

Reduced Idling ____________________________________________________________________12

Equipment Maintenance ___________________________________________________________14

Driver Training ____________________________________________________________________14

Properly Sized Equipment__________________________________________________________15

Replaced or Repowered Equipment_________________________________________________15

Biofuels for Trucks and Nonroad Equipment________________________________________16

Alternatives to Diesel Generators___________________________________________________18

Employee Commuting _____________________________________________________________19

2.2 CONSERVING ELECTRICITY ____________________________________________________ 20

2.3 REDUCING IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS________________________________ 21

Recycling and Reuse _______________________________________________________________21

Materials Selection, Procurement, and Shipment Methods___________________________24

3 CALCULATING COMPANY-SPECIFIC GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS _________________26

3.1 EXISTING CALCULATION GUIDANCE _____________________________________________ 26

3.2 CURRENT APPROACHES IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INVENTORIES ___________________ 27

3.3 CONSTRUCTION-SPECIFIC CALCULATION TOOL____________________________________28

4 SUMMARY ________________________________________________________________29

APPENDIX A: SUBSECTOR SIZE AND SOURCES OF EMISSIONS _________________________31

APPENDIX B: DETAILS OF 2002 CONSTRUCTION SUBSECTOR EMISSIONS INTENSITY _____34

APPENDIX C: CONSTRUCTION SUBSECTOR DESCRIPTIONS OF 2002 NAICS CODES______36

ENDNOTES ___________________________________________________________________39
February 2009 ii

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

AEO

ANL

ASTM

C&D

Annual Energy Outlook

Argonne National Laboratory

American Society for Testing and Materials

Construction and demolition

CH4 Methane

CO2 Carbon dioxide

CO2e

DOE

EIA

FLEET

GDP

GHG

HFC

IPCC

ISO

kWh

Carbon dioxide equivalents

U.S. Department of Energy

Energy Information Association

Freight Logistics Environmental and Energy Tracking

Gross domestic product

Greenhouse gas

Hydrofluorocarbon

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

International Organization for Standardization

Kilowatt-hour

MMT Million metric tons

Mpg

N2O

Miles per gallon

Nitrous oxide

NAICS

PFC

North American Industry Classification System

Perfluorocarbon

SF6 Sulfur hexafluoride

WBCSD

WRI

World Business Council for Sustainable Development

World Resources Institute
February 2009 1

INTRODUCTION

With growing attention to the impact of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions on climate change, and in an

effort to better understand the construction industry’s emissions, EPA’s Sector Strategies Division has

developed this report on the sources and magnitude of construction GHG emissions and ways to reduce

them. Although numerous studies are available that help companies identify and quantify their GHG

emissions, none of them are specific to the construction industry. This document examines opportunities

explicitly for construction companies.

GHGs are necessary to life as we know it, because they keep the planet's surface warmer than it otherwise

would be. But, as the concentrations of these gases continue to increase in the atmosphere, the Earth's

temperature is climbing above past levels. According to NOAA and NASA data, the Earth's average

surface temperature has increased by about 1.2 to 1.4oF in the last 100 years. The eight warmest years on

record (since 1850) have all occurred since 1998, with the warmest year being 2005. Most of the warming

in recent decades is very likely the result of human activities. Other aspects of the climate are also

changing, such as rainfall patterns, snow and ice cover, and sea level.1

If greenhouse gases continue to increase, climate models predict that the average temperature at the

Earth's surface could increase from 3.2 to 7.2oF above 1990 levels by the end of this century. Scientists

are certain that human activities are changing the composition of the atmosphere, and that increasing the

concentration of greenhouse gases will change the planet's climate. But they are not sure by how much it

will change, at what rate it will change, or what the exact effects will be.2

The construction sector plays an essential role in improving the environment by continuing to improve the

environmental performance of the country’s buildings and infrastructure. Because of its products’

longevity, the construction industry is in a unique position to support environmental benefits both through

everyday jobsite practices and through lasting structural improvements. Throughout this document, the

construction industry is defined as the national economic sector engaged in “the preparation of land and

the construction, alteration, and repair of buildings, structures, and other real property.”3 This report’s

definition of construction activities does not include activities prior to construction, such as design, siting

of buildings, or specification of materials, nor does it include the operation of structures following

construction.

The purpose of this report is not to suggest or propose GHG policies for the construction industry; this

paper does not recommend nor discuss any government actions to reduce emissions. Instead, the

information presented represents an overview of current knowledge on the sources of construction GHG

emissions. The opportunities to reduce emissions presented within this document are meant to illustrate

possible approaches to GHG reductions, based on the best available information. Topics such as biofuels

and materials recycling have been included to better address the GHG implications of increasingly

popular “green construction” practices.

Characterizing the GHG emissions of the construction sector presents challenges, most notably due to the

large number of firms (estimated at more than 800,000) and the even larger number of construction sites

where the majority of emissions occur.4 Limited data are available to accurately estimate collective,

sector-wide emissions from the hundreds of thousands of construction firms. The estimates that are

available are presented in Section 1, which also highlights key assumptions made in the calculations. In

addition to total emissions, an overview of emissions intensity (emissions per dollar value added)

provides another metric to assess the construction sector’s impact compared with those of other industrial
February 2009 2

sectors. Both emissions and emissions intensity are characterized for the three major subsectors:

Buildings, Heavy and Civil Engineering, and Specialty Trades.

If a large number of small GHG emissions sources within the construction industry were to adopt energyand climate-conscious practices, aggregate emissions could be reduced substantially. Opportunities for

reducing emissions are presented in Section 2, including practical and low-cost changes in operations.

Consistency and clarity in calculating emissions are important in order to compare emissions within and

across sectors, and for companies to plan and assess progress. Section 3 presents information on GHG

inventory protocols that are publicly available and frequently used, and examines the attributes of a

protocol that would be useful for companies in the construction sector.
February 2009 3

1 CHARACTERIZING THE CONSTRUCTION SECTOR’S

GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS

In 2002, the construction industry produced approximately 1.7% of total U.S. greenhouse gas emissions.

Equivalent to 6% of total U.S. industrial-related greenhouse gas emissions, this quantity places

construction as one of the top emitting sectors.5 Although construction practices typically do not produce

large quantities of GHGs compared to the operations of many other sectors, the sheer number of

construction projects results in significant aggregate emissions for the sector.

To provide a better understanding of the sector’s GHG emissions, Section 1 discusses the data and

methods used to calculate the tons of GHG emissions for the sector. Current emissions accounting

includes only traditionally quantified emissions sources: fossil fuel combustion and purchased electricity.

Future accounting may include lifecycle emissions, such as emissions from the production and transport

of the materials used or waste disposed, which would provide a more complete estimate of the impact of

construction activities.

In addition to the measure of the tons of GHGs emitted, “emissions intensity” (emissions per dollar of

value added) provides another metric of environmental performance that also takes into account economic

performance. Emissions intensity may be useful to identify sectors or subsectors with highly emissive

processes. To meaningfully interpret the emissions intensities of construction subsectors requires prior

knowledge of the factors and processes that affect both emissions and value added.

1.1 CHARACTERIZATION OF EMISSIONS

The Sector Strategies Division of EPA recently released the report Quantifying Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors in the U.S., which presents historical emissions estimates for 14

industrial sectors that produce 84% of industrial GHG emissions in the United States. According to this

report, the construction sector produced 6% of total U.S. industrial GHG emissions in 2002.6 As shown

in Figure 1, the construction sector has the third highest GHG emissions among the industrial sectors

analyzed. In this figure, GHG emissions are grouped by three broad categories of activities: fossil fuel

combustion, purchased electricity, and non-combustion activities. Fossil fuel combustion is the use of

fossil fuels, such as gasoline, diesel, or coal, to produce heat or run equipment. Purchased electricity is

the quantity of GHGs resulting from the generation of purchased electric power. Non-combustion

activities include the production of GHGs from other processes or reactions, such as when CO2 is released

during the calcination stage of lime production.
February 2009 4

Figure 1: 2002 Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Key Industrial Sectors

MMTCO2e

Notes: Depending on the sector, emissions may include CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O). For construction, only

CO2 emissions are reported for fossil fuel combustion.

MMTCO2e = million metric tons of CO2 equivalents.

Source: Reprinted from U.S. EPA, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors in the U.S., Sector

Strategies Division, May 2008, Figure 1-4.

BREAKDOWN OF EMISSIONS SOURCES

For the construction industry, the two major sources of emissions included in the Quantifying Greenhouse

Gas Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors report relate to fossil fuel combustion, primarily from

construction equipment, and fuel use from purchased electricity. The report estimated that in 2002 the

construction sector released 131 million metric tons of CO2 equivalents, as shown in Table 1.

Table 1: Construction Sector Greenhouse Gas Emissions, 2002

Emissions source Million metric tons of CO2e Percent of total

Fossil Fuel Combustion 100 76 %

Purchased Electricity 31 24 %

Total 131

Source: U.S. EPA, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors in the U.S., Sector Strategies Division,

May 2008.

Note: Fossil fuel combustion is an estimate of CO2 emissions only. Purchased electricity is an estimate of CO2, CH4, and N2O

emissions. To remain consistent with the source report cited above, the total quantity is presented in units of CO2e.
February 2009 5

FOSSIL FUEL COMBUSTION—For 2002, the Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key Industrial

Sectors report estimated that the construction sector released 100 million metric tons of CO2 from fossil

fuel combustion. This estimate was derived using the 2002 Economic Census data of the dollars the sector

spent on fuel purchases, divided by the average 2002 cost per gallon of diesel and gasoline from EIA’s

State Energy Data Report to calculate the gallons of fuel purchased. Gallons were then converted to CO2

emissions using EPA emissions factors for mobile combustion fuels. Fossil fuel combustion includes

emissions from on- and off-highway construction vehicle combustion of gasoline and diesel fuel, natural

gas combustion for office power, heating and tools, and diesel used for generators. Gasoline and diesel

fuel combustion accounted for approximately 88 million metric tons of CO2, and consumption of natural

gas accounted for approximately 12 million metric tons. The data sources used to calculate the emissions

do not provide information on gasoline and diesel consumption separately. Therefore, the report used the

following assumptions: 50% of on-highway construction vehicles use diesel and 50% use gasoline, and

all off-highway vehicles consume only diesel fuel. The emissions calculation does not take into account

emissions of N2O or CH4, which can vary by vehicle emissions control technologies. These additional

GHG emissions could be significant for older heavy-duty equipment without recent emissions control

technologies.7

PURCHASED ELECTRICITY—The Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors

report estimated that the electricity that the construction sector purchased resulted in the release of 31

million metric tons of CO2 equivalents in 2002. Emissions from purchased electricity result from fuel

combusted at the power plant. The report calculated these emissions from sector-reported electricity

purchases, using an average national emissions factor for 2004 from EPA’s eGRID model of electricity

sources.8

COMPARING EMISSIONS ESTIMATES

In addition to the emissions estimate of 131 million metric tons of CO2e from construction sector fuel

combustion and purchased electricity presented in the Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key

Industrial Sectors report, two other sources provide estimates of the sector’s GHG emissions:

 The Energy Information Association (EIA) of DOE produces an analysis of CO2 emissions

from the construction sector as a supplement to its Annual Energy Outlook (AEO). For 2002,

AEO 2008 estimated construction sector emissions from fossil fuel combustion and purchased

electricity as 77.4 million metric tons of CO2. The AEO 2008 produces estimates as model

output of the EIA National Energy Modeling System’s Industrial Sector Demand module,

based on multiple inputs.9

 EPA calculates GHG emissions from the construction sector for its annual Inventory of U.S.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks. The most recent Inventory estimated CO2 emissions

from the construction and mining sectors in 2002 as 57.9 million metric tons of CO2 for nontransportation mobile sources (i.e., sources that do not move people or goods) only. These

estimates were developed from EPA’s NONROAD model and FHWA’s Highway Statistics.

Direct comparisons of the different emissions estimates are complicated by the widely-varying methods

they use to estimate emissions. The Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors

report used data on the dollars spent on electricity and fuel, which were converted to physical units based

on national average purchase prices. The AEO and EPA Inventory methods use multiple inputs and each

uses a different model to estimate emissions. The EPA Inventory estimate is less comparable in that it

includes only non-transportation mobile sources, and presents construction and mining emissions as one
February 2009 6

aggregated value. The estimates of emissions reductions presented in Section 2 of this report are based on

the values and methods from Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors.

SUBSECTOR EMISSIONS

The 2002 Economic Census Industry Series reports fuel consumption and purchased electricity by

subsector; therefore, emissions can be attributed to each of the construction subsectors defined by the

North American Industry Classification System (NAICS).10 Following the method of the Quantifying

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors report, the estimated emissions for the construction

subsectors are shown in the pie chart in Figure 2. As noted in Table 1, the method used to estimate

emissions combines CO2 emissions only for fossil fuel combustion, and CO2e emissions for purchased

electricity. The totals are presented in Figure 2 as CO2e to be consistent with the source document. Also

note that approximately 97% of the total CO2e emissions from fossil fuel combustion are attributable to

CO2.

11 Subsectors in Figure 2 are defined at the five-digit NAICS level. With the exception of Industrial

Building Construction, subsectors that contribute 5% or less of the total industry emissions are included

in the “Other subsectors” categories.

Figure 2: Construction Industry Subsector Emissions in 2002

Construction Industry Emissions, by Subsector

(% by CO2e)

Commercial and institutional

building construction,

12.3%

Other subsectors,

Specialty Trade

Contractors, 23.9%

Site preparation

contractors, 6.2%

Plumbing, heating, and air

conditioning contractors,

5.1%

Other subsectors, Heavy

and Civil Engineering

Construction , 12.4%

Highw ay, street, and

bridge construction, 13.4%

Industrial building

construction, 1.3%

Residential building

construction , 18.4%

Electrical Contractors, 7.0%

Table 2: Proportion of Construction Subsector Emissions and Establishments

(by 3-digit NAICS code)

NAICS

Code Subsector Description Proportion of TotalSector Emissions

Proportion of Total

Establishments

236 Construction of Buildings 32% 30%

237 Heavy and Civil Engineering 26% 7%

238 Specialty Trade Contractors 42% 63%
February 2009 7

For context, Table 2 presents the proportion of the sector’s establishments in each of the three major

subsectors, along with the contribution of each subsector to total construction GHG emissions. To better

understand subsector emissions, it is important to consider whether the driving cause of emissions is a

subsector’s emissions-producing activities or its size. Appendix A provides a table of the more detailed

subsectors, with the associated emissions by source (i.e., purchased electricity, natural gas consumption,

or on-highway and off-highway vehicle fuel use) and the number of establishments. Emissions intensity,

presented in more detail in the following section, provides a metric to view the subsector’s emissions in

the context of its relative economic size.

EMISSIONS INTENSITY

Emissions intensity provides a means for comparing sectors’ emissions while taking into account

economic output. Emissions intensity is typically calculated as a ratio of the GHG emissions produced per

dollar of gross domestic product (GDP). In portraying industry-specific emissions intensity, the most

analogous measure to GDP is the value added by the industry. The 2002 Economic Census provides

information on the value added by the construction industry and its subsectors.

Figure 3: Emissions Intensities for Key Industrial Sectors, in metric tons CO2e/2002k$

Comparison of Industrial Sector Emissions Intensities

3.53

1.46

0.23

0.85

6.29

0.45

2.91

18.2

0.48

42.5

1.14

6.14

0.48

0.28

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

Oil and Gas

Chemicals

Construction

Forest Products

Iron and Steel

Food and Beverages

Mining

Cement

Aluminum

Plastic and Rubber Products

Textiles

Lime

Metal Casting

Semiconductor

Emissions Intensity (MTCO2e/thousand 2002$)

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 45.00

2002 GHG Emissions (MMTCO2e)

Emissions

Intensity

Note: MTCO2e = metric tons of CO2 equivalents; MMTCO2e= million metric tons CO2 equivalents.

Source: Emissions values used in the emissions intensity calculations for 2002 from the Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in

Key Industrial Sectors in the U.S. EPA report (May 2008). Value added for emissions intensity calculations taken from the 2002

Economic Census Industry Series reports, aggregated by sector by the method defined for emissions estimates in the Quantifying

Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors in the U.S. EPA report. Construction industry value added compiled from

subsector 2002 Economic Census Industry Series reports, Table 4.
February 2009 8

Figure 3 presents emissions intensities for the industries identified in the Quantifying Greenhouse Gas

Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors report, in order of decreasing absolute emissions (shown in the same

order as Figure 1). In comparison to other industrial sectors identified in this report, the construction

industry had the lowest 2002 emissions intensity at 0.23 metric tons of CO2 equivalents per thousand

2002 dollar (MTCO2e/2002k$), and the lime and cement sectors had the highest intensities at 42.5 and

18.2 MTCO2e/2002k$, respectively.

Figure 4 compares emissions intensities among construction subsectors as defined by five-digit NAICS

codes. The variety of processes within the construction sector leads to significantly different emissions

intensities across subsectors, as shown in Figure 4 and Appendix B. For example, the highway, street, and

bridge construction subsector (NAICS code 23731) has a much higher emissions intensity than power and

communication line construction (NAICS code 23713). Value added for the highway, street, and bridge

construction subsector is 1.6 times greater than for the power and communication line construction

subsector, yet emissions by highway, street, and bridge construction are more than five times those of the

power and communication line construction.

Figure 4: Construction Industry Emissions Intensity, with Breakdown by Subsector, in

MTCO2e/2002k$

Construction Emissions Intensity, by Subsector

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

Residential building

Industrial building

Commercial building

Water/sewer lines

Oil/gas pipelines

Power lines

Land subdivision

Highway/Road/Bridge

Other heavy construction

Foundation contractors

Structural steel contractors

Framing contractors

Masonry contractors

Glass/glazing contractors

Roofing contractors

Siding contractors

Other structural contractors

Electrical contractors

Plumbing/HVAC contractors

Other bldg equip. contractors

Drywall contractors

Painting contractors

Flooring contractors

Tiling contractors

Carpentry contractors

Other finishing contractors

Site preparation contractors

Other trades contractors

Emissions Intensity (kgCO2e/2002$)

NAICS 237: Heavy and Civil

Engineering Construction

NAICS 236:

Construction

of Buildings

NAICS 238: Specialty Contractors

Note: A table of emissions and value added for each subsector is available in Appendix B, and descriptions of NAICS codes

for construction subsectors are located in Appendix C.

Differences in emissions intensity may also reflect differences in the subsectors’ value added. Plumbing,

heating, and air conditioning contractors (NAICS 23822) and all other specialty trade contractors (NAICS

23899) produce approximately the same emissions, but the value added by plumbing, heating, and air

conditioning contractors is approximately four times greater than that of the all-other-specialty trade

contractor subsector. The result is that the emission intensity for the plumbing subsector is one-fourth that

of the all-other-specialty trade subsector.
February 2009 9

Table 3: Top and Bottom Five Construction Subsector Emissions Intensities,

by Five-Digit NAICS Code

2002

NAICS Subsector Description Intensity(MTCO2e/2002k$)

23731 Highway, street, and bridge construction 0.49

23899 All other specialty trade contractors 0.41

23711 Water and sewer line and related structures construction 0.37

23799 Other heavy and civil engineering construction 0.37

Top 5

23891 Site preparation contractors 0.36

23829 Other building equipment contractors 0.17

23713 Power and communication line and related structures construction 0.14

23813 Framing contractors: Carpentry 0.13

Bottom 5

23822 Plumbing, heating, and air conditioning contractors 0.10

23831 Drywall and insulation contractors 0.03

In summary, differences in an industry’s emissions intensity may result from any or all of the following

factors: the amount of energy used, the fuel mix used, the size and number of firms, or the economic

production of the sector. Over time, decreasing emissions intensity may indicate decreasing energy use in

the sector, but it may instead indicate increasing economic production. Therefore, emissions intensity is

not sufficient to identify or compare any reductions in emissions unless combined with an understanding

of the subsector’s absolute emissions and the value added.

1.2 PROJECTIONS OF THE FUTURE GREENHOUSE GAS IMPACTS OF

CONSTRUCTION

EIA’s Annual Energy Outlook provides annual projections of U.S. energy supply and demand to the year

2030. As part of its analysis of industrial sectors, the AEO provides annual estimates of CO2 emissions

from the construction industry’s fossil fuel combustion and purchased electricity. To produce the AEO

projections, economic factors and technology predictions are provided to an integrated economic model,

which in turn produces estimates of energy consumption based on the sources’ related economic impacts.

As a result, both energy consumption and emissions are derived from corresponding economic factors.

According to the recent AEO 2008, the construction sector and its CO2 emissions are particularly affected

by the recent slowdown in the U.S. economy in the near term.12

The sector’s long-term energy consumption is not expected to grow significantly, even when the sector’s

growth resumes, due to expected advances in technology and changes in fuel use, including increased use

of biofuels and renewable energy to generate electric power. By 2030 construction energy is not expected

to surpass historic levels of consumption. Figure 5 shows that aggregate construction CO2 emissions are

expected to decline slightly from 2005 levels by 2030. Economic projections show that construction value

added will increase much more significantly than emissions, suggesting an overall decrease in emissions

intensity.
February 2009 10

Figure 5: Projection of Construction Industry CO2Estimates to 2030

Projection of Construction Industry Emissions to 2030

0.0

20.0

40.0

60.0

80.0

100.0

2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030

CO2 Emissions

(million metric tons)

Note: AEO provides estimates of CO2 emissions only. The dip in emissions is related to recent decreases in construction

activity.

Source: EIA, Annual Energy Outlook 2008, June 2008.

Projections for construction and six other industrial sectors show the construction industry to have the

highest average annual rate of increase in emissions from 2011 through 2030. 13,14 The construction

increase, however, is only 0.3% per year. Additional emissions reduction efforts by the construction

industry could possibly reverse the projected trend to bring a decline in total emissions.
February 2009 11

2 EVALUATING OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE EMISSIONS

Construction contractors may have control over many of the activities associated with GHG emissions at

a construction site, such as how efficiently they use fuel and electricity. However, other decisions that

result in GHG emissions (e.g., materials selection and site selection) are usually made by project owners

and architects, not by contractors. The following table lists the construction activities that result in GHG

emissions, and categorizes each activity by contractors’ potential ability to affect emissions.

Figure 6: Contractors’ Influence on Activities Resulting in GHG Emissions

Most Influence

Fuel selection Equipment idling Electricity use

Equipment maintenance Equipment selection Materials recycling

Some Influence Possible

Materials selection Employee commuting

Materials shipment Vegetation removal

Little Influence

Site selection Structure design and

performance

This section examines options for reducing greenhouse gas emissions associated with construction

activities, focusing on the activities that construction companies control or influence. The options and

scenarios presented in this section are based on currently available technologies and techniques, where

emissions reduction can be realized in the near term. In the long term, future changes in available

technologies and fuels will likely result in additional or different options. In Sections 2.1 and 2.2, we

present options for reducing GHG emissions through reductions in fuel and electricity consumption,

where the most direct and measurable emissions reductions can be realized. Recent focus has also turned

to considering the emissions related to the entire construction supply chain from a lifecycle perspective.

In Section 2.3, we present emissions reduction options related to the construction lifecycle, such as

materials reuse and recycling. We present the emissions and costs associated with each option, when

these are available. In most cases, the emissions reductions and costs are rough estimates, included to

provide the general magnitude of emissions reductions possible. Unfortunately, the quantitative

information needed for more-precise estimates is not currently available.

2.1 REDUCING FUEL USE

Estimates presented in Section 1 indicate that approximately three-quarters of the GHG emissions from

the construction sector result from diesel, gasoline, and natural gas combustion. The GHG reduction

options presented in this section focus on reducing the emissions from fuel combustion, primarily by

improving fuel efficiency. Better fuel efficiency results in less fuel consumed to complete the same job,

thereby reducing emissions as well as fuel costs. Often, the steps taken to improve fuel efficiency also

result in other benefits, including increased equipment life and reduced emissions of other air pollutants

such as particulate matter. Historically, fuel costs have not constituted a large portion of construction

firms’ operating budgets15, and thus many contractors have not focused on reducing their fuel use. Fuel
February 2009 12

costs are rising, however, and with increased costs, fuel efficiency is expected to become a higher priority

for construction contractors. As contractors implement techniques to reduce their fuel costs, they will

simultaneously reduce their GHG emissions.

Table 4 presents CO2 emissions factors for the fuels most commonly used in the construction sector. The

emission factor for diesel fuel indicates that 22.37 lbs of CO2 are emitted for every gallon of diesel

combusted, and 19.54 lbs of CO2 are emitted for one gallon of gasoline. The last two columns in the table

present the estimated tons of CO2 emissions that could be reduced in the United States if the construction

sector reduced use of the fuel by 3% or by 10%. These percent values were selected as a practical way to

illustrate the magnitude of emissions reductions associated with the two different levels of improvements,

and are used throughout this section of the report. For example, if the construction sector as a whole

reduced diesel fuel use by 10%, the reduction in CO2 emissions would be an estimated 14.8 billion lbs

(6.73 million metric tons) of CO2. A 10% reduction in diesel fuel use would reduce construction sector

CO2 emissions from all energy sources by approximately 5%.

Table 4: GHG Emissions Reduction Scenarios from Reduced Fossil Fuel Use

Fuel

Estimate of Sector-Wide Emissions

Reductions*

Emissions

(lbs CO2/unit

material) Using 3% less fuel Using 10% less fuel

Diesel 22.37 lbs CO2/gallon 4,455 million lbs CO2

2.02 MMTCO2

14,849 million lbs CO2

6.73 MMTCO2

Gasoline 19.54 lbs CO2/gallon 1,383 million lbs CO2

0.63 MMTCO2

4,609 million lbs CO2

2.09 MMTCO2

Propane 12.66 lbs CO2/gallon NA** NA**

Natural gas 11.7 lbs CO2/1,000 ft3 786 million lbs CO2

0.36 MMTCO2

2,620 million lbs CO2

1.19 MMTCO2

Notes: Emissions factor for diesel and gasoline converted from EPA’s 2008 Inventory of Greenhouse Gases 1999-2006,

Table A-29 and A-30. Emissions factor for propane and natural gas converted from EIA data sources.

MMTCO2 = million metric tons of CO2

* Estimate of possible emissions savings from percentage reductions, based on the 2002 fuel consumption estimates

and assumptions used in the EPA report, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors in the U.S.

(May 2008). Numbers presented are for the purpose of illustrating the magnitude of possible reductions only and should

not be interpreted as absolute quantities. No Economic Census data are available to estimate sector-wide propane

consumption.

** NA = Data not available.

To achieve improvements in fuel efficiency and realize the associated reductions in GHG emissions,

contractors can make changes ranging from reducing equipment idling time and improving maintenance

to replacing or repowering equipment. Information on these and other options follows.

REDUCED IDLING

Unnecessary idling occurs when trucks wait for extended periods of time to load or unload, or when

equipment that is not being used is left on, such as to maintain heating or cooling for driver comfort.

Reduced idling reduces fuel consumption and the associated costs and GHG emissions. Regulations

restricting idling were in place in almost half the states as of July 2008. These regulations vary by state,

county, or city, but typically restrict idling to 3–10 minutes and do not distinguish between gasoline or

diesel vehicles.16 Most of these regulations are relatively new, and many have associated information
February 2009 13

campaigns to increase awareness of the fuel costs and emissions caused by idling. Idling reductions can

also reduce longer-term costs; each hour of idling eliminated can save as much as 2 hours of engine life.

Since an idling engine does not generate enough heat for proper combustion, deposits will form over time

on the piston and cylinder walls and contaminate the oil. This contamination creates additional friction

that will accelerate engine wear.17

To reduce idling and the associated GHG emissions, construction firms need to evaluate when and why

idling occurs in the company’s activities; this evaluation may include reviewing fuel receipts to

understand which projects or groups are consuming more fuel, interviewing drivers, or making systematic

observations of the work site. Idling reductions can be achieved through changes in work practices, such

as training drivers to turn off equipment rather than idle, or through changes in equipment, such as adding

fuel-efficient auxiliary power for the heat or air conditioning needed for driver comfort.

GHG Emissions Impacts: No data were identified that estimate the average GHG emissions

associated with construction equipment idling, or the national average idle time for a piece of

construction equipment. Some targeted studies, however, provide some information that can be

used to assess emissions from idling construction equipment and vehicles. A study of long-haul

truck idling indicates that GHG emissions depend upon the level of idling and on how often the

idling occurs. A typical Class 8 diesel engine at high idle consumes 1.2 gallons of fuel per hour,

which translates to 26.1 lbs CO2 emissions per hour. At low idle, 0.6 gallons are consumed per

hour, resulting in 12.8 lbs CO2 emissions per hour.18 A 2005 study of California construction

equipment shows that an average heavy-heavy duty diesel truck (Class 7) idles 29.4% of its

operational time.19 An analysis by one construction firm of all its construction equipment (over

300 pieces) estimated that an idling reduction equal to 10% of the total operating time would save

almost 524,660 lbs (238 metric tons) CO2 per year, using the assumption that idling consumes 1.2

gallons fuel per hour.20

Without data on the total idling hours for construction vehicles and equipment in the United

States, the total potential emissions reductions possible through sector-wide idling reductions

could not be estimated. As an illustrative example of the potential sector-wide impact of idling

reductions on GHG emissions, we examine two scenarios:

 If construction firms could reduce idling by an average of 10 hours per month per firm

(be it a reduction of 10 hours/month from one piece of equipment or a 1 hour/month

reduction from 10 pieces of equipment), the resulting GHG emissions savings sectorwide would total approximately 1.4 billion lbs of CO2 (650,000 metric tons) per year.21

For purposes of illustration, this scenario intentionally presents a simplified calculation

where it is assumed that on average, each construction firm reduces idling by 10 hours

per month. From a practical standpoint, we acknowledge that for some firms, such as

those that do not own heavy equipment, 10 hours/month idling reduction is not feasible.

Other firms that regularly operate many pieces of equipment, however, may be able to

reduce idling by more than 10 hours per month; thus, we rely on the averaging across

different types of firms to establish this estimate.

 If construction firms could reduce idling of off-road diesel equipment by 10%, the

resulting GHG emissions savings sector-wide could total approximately 1.8 billion lbs of

CO2 (830,000 metric tons) per year. This estimate is limited in that it includes off-road

vehicles only, and makes the following assumptions based on minimal available data: the

sector operates 2 million off-road vehicles at 1,500 hours per year, and idling emits 20.7

lbs CO2 per hour.22
February 2009 14

Cost Impacts: Argonne National Laboratory (ANL) provides a simple worksheet to calculate

savings from reduced idling.23 For technology solutions to idling, the ANL worksheet may help

construction firms to calculate the payback period for various products. For many construction

firms, reducing idling would involve changing work practices. While implementing an idling

reduction program requires staff time to raise awareness of and monitor new work practices, the

external costs are minimal.

EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE

Proper maintenance often results in fuel savings, although the magnitude of savings varies by equipment

type and condition. Maintenance may include systematic equipment inspection, detection of potential

failure, and prompt correction. Two examples of maintenance activities that can reduce GHG emissions

include:

 Forklift maintenance. A recent study of forklift maintenance estimated that 50% of forklifts were

not properly maintained, each of which could be wasting more than 400 gallons of propane

annually.24

GHG Emissions Impacts: Propane emits about 12.7 lbs of CO2 per gallon, resulting in more than

2.3 tons of CO2 emitted by each improperly maintained forklift each year.

Cost Impacts: At the average 2007 propane price of $1.87 per gallon, 400 gallons wasted costs

about $750 per year.

Improperly inflated tires and poor wheel alignment, which can adversely affect fuel efficiency of

a small truck by 3–4%. Under-inflated tires increase the tires’ rolling resistance, and increased

rolling resistance requires more fuel to move the vehicle.

GHG Emissions Impacts: A 3–4% improvement in fuel efficiency can reduce CO2 emissions per

vehicle by 650–860 lbs (0.3 to 0.4 metric tons of CO2) annually for a typical light-duty diesel

truck.25

Cost Impacts: At the 2007 U.S. national average cost of diesel sold to industry of $2.34 per

gallon, the above losses may save the operator up to $90 in fuel costs per vehicle.26



DRIVER TRAINING

Driver training can also provide incremental savings by more efficiently operating equipment.

 Komatsu estimates that excavator operators who needlessly shift hydraulic levers while already at

the equipment’s maximum capacity in futile attempts to lift more could save a company 225

gallons of fuel per year if this practice were eliminated for even 1 hour a day. 27

GHG Emissions Impacts: Assuming a generic emissions factor of 22.37 lbs of CO2 per gallon,

such reductions could save 5,033 lbs (2.28 metric tons) CO2 per year.

Cost Impacts: At the 2007 U.S. national average cost of diesel fuel ($2.34 per gallon for regular

diesel), the above fuel savings from a 1-hour per day reduction could reduce costs by $527 per

year for each excavator. 28
February 2009 15

 Reducing the angle at which an off-road truck is parked next to a loading excavator can save fuel.

Having the excavator’s boom swivel 30 degrees to dump its load instead of 90 degrees could

reduce fuel use for the task by 3%. 29

GHG Emissions Impacts: A large excavator may use up to 20 gallons fuel per hour, resulting in

GHG emissions up to 440 lbs per hour. A 3% improvement in fuel efficiency could reduce

emissions by up to 13 lbs for each hour the loading angle is improved.

Cost Impacts: At the 2007 U.S. national average cost of diesel, a change of 3% could provide

more than $1.40 in fuel savings for each hour the loading angle is corrected.

 Excavating a slope in two stages in a stair fashion, instead of dragging a bucket from bottom to

top in one motion, shortens the cycle between dumps and uses 8% less fuel, according to

Komatsu engineers.30

GHG Emissions Impacts: GHG emissions and cost impacts which will vary depending on the

parameters of each excavation task. For a large excavator using 20 gallons fuel per hour, an 8%

improvement in fuel efficiency could reduce emissions by up to 35 lbs for each hour that stair

fashion excavating is used in place of the bottom to top dragging technique.

Cost Impacts: At the 2007 U.S. national average cost of diesel, a change in fuel efficiency of 8%

could provide $3.75 in fuel savings for each hour the improved excavating technique is used.

PROPERLY SIZED EQUIPMENT

Identifying the proper size equipment for a task can also provide fuel savings and associated reductions in

GHG emissions. Truck engines too large for an application burn more fuel by adding unnecessary weight.

In addition, drivers may be prone to use the excess horsepower needlessly, causing additional fuel

consumption. An undersized engine easily becomes overworked, leading to excess fuel consumption and

accelerated engine wear.31 Possible GHG emissions reductions are proportional to the difference between

the horsepower used and the horsepower required for the task. The potential emissions savings are also

firm-specific, in that the proper size equipment may not be available in the company’s fleet. Given the

scope of these constraints, a reasonable illustrative example of the possible GHG reductions resulting

from proper sizing of equipment could not be developed.

REPLACED OR REPOWERED EQUIPMENT

Longer-term fuel-saving solutions involve replacing older, less fuel-efficient equipment with newer

models. Through advances in engine technology, reduced equipment weight, and even some hybrid

technologies, equipment manufacturers are offering more fuel-efficient new equipment.

Installation of hydraulic fans as part of repowering can reduce fuel consumption and the associated

emissions. Hydraulic fans operate with variable speed to optimize engine cooling when needed, unlike

belt-driven fans where the air flow is dependent on the engine speed, not on the cooling demand. Less

power is then required for cooling, and the lowest amount of fuel per horsepower is consumed when the

engine is operating consistently at optimal temperature.32

Replacement engine systems show promise in reducing fuel consumption and emissions by new

technologies. Through repowering with a new diesel engine, an older piece of equipment is brought up to

the fuel economy, emissions, and maintenance standards of new equipment, thus reducing overall

equipment operating costs. The potential for emissions reductions will be based on the age of the engine
February 2009 16

replaced and the differences in technology. While a firm is not likely to replace or repower its entire fleet,

these options are meant as suggestions for additional ways to achieve emissions reductions if faced with

malfunctioning older equipment.

GHG Emissions Impacts: Manufacturers have reported that new engines can improve fuel

economy by 5% or more.33 A 2008 article cited that replacing a 1995 tractor hauler engine with a

2009 model increased fuel economy from 4.6 mpg to 6.2 mpg, an improvement of almost 35%.34

By improving fuel efficiency by 5%, a track-type tractor operating 1,500 hours per year and

typically using 16 gallons of fuel per hour could reduce its emissions by 26,800 lbs (12 tons) CO2

per year. 35

Cost Impacts: The cost of repowering a piece of equipment is high and depends on the age,

make, and model of the machine. For example, the cost of repowering a single engine scraper

may be as much as $120,000.36 The likely benefits depend on the equipment replaced.37 For the

example above, assuming 2007 national average industry diesel costs, a 5% improvement in fuel

economy would save an owner $2,800 per year in fuel costs.

BIOFUELS FOR TRUCKS AND NONROAD EQUIPMENT

Using low-carbon fuels in place of petroleum gasoline or diesel also reduces GHG emissions. In

particular, the growth of the biofuel industry may allow opportunities to reduce emissions, although the

resulting lifecycle emissions benefits are under debate. Lifecycle emissions calculations are largely

dependent on the source material, its growth process, and the fuel type used at biofuel refineries. Biofuels

that require significant fertilizer applications or refining release more GHGs through additional

processing, and fossil fuel combustion at refineries displaces some of the emissions benefit of using the

biofuel. In the United States, approximately 89% of biodiesel is currently derived from soybeans, with

less than 9% of production from recycled vegetable oils or tallow. 38 To control biodiesel quality,

standards of the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) require biodiesel sold in the United

States to be derived only from virgin vegetable oils or animal fats.39

The most recent compilation of scientific literature on biofuel lifecycle emissions, the Gallagher Review

of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production, presents biodiesel emissions savings ranges for various

biofuels, when compared to fossil fuels (see Figure 7).40 For example, switching from petroleum diesel to

biodiesel from palm oil will reduce GHG emissions by approximately 25% – 65%, depending on the type

of fuel used at the biofuel refinery (e.g., renewable energy or petroleum), for technologies in use globally

as of 2008. These results suggest that switching from petroleum diesel to 100% biodiesel (B100) may

reduce GHG lifecycle emissions by more than 80% or may increase emissions by almost 20%; on

average, without considering land-use changes associated with crop production, biodiesel from soybeans

may provide an emissions savings of 33%.41 The Gallagher Review also suggests that the current

uncertainty in total GHG emissions changes may be even greater than the range shown above as a result

of variability in calculating emissions from land-use shifts due to increased biofuel feedstock growth.42

According to the foremost U.S. study published in 1998 by the U.S. Department of Energy, biodiesel

from soybean oil is estimated to reduce lifecycle CO2 emissions by 78% when compared to petroleum

diesel.43 The lifecycle emissions are proportional to any blending with petroleum, so a 20% biodiesel

blend (B20) may achieve approximately a 16% reduction in lifecycle CO2 emissions.
February 2009 17

Figure 7: Range of Possible GHG Emissions Savings for Various Biofuels

Source: Reprinted from the Renewable Fuels Agency, The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production,

July 2008, http://www.dft.gov.uk/rfa/_db/_documents/Report_of_the_Gallagher_review.pdf.

---Biodiesel---

The use of biodiesel has additional caveats that should be considered before converting equipment.

Biodiesel has different solvent properties from petroleum diesel. Biodiesel will degrade any engine hoses

or gaskets made with natural rubber (generally used on vehicles manufactured prior to 1992), and will

break down any residual petroleum deposits in fuel lines, which in turn will clog fuel filters. As a result,

use of biodiesel may void a vehicle’s warranty without proper maintenance and dealer approval for fuel

switching. Nevertheless, most construction equipment manufacturers are supportive of the use of

biodiesel. For example, John Deere has been manufacturing equipment approved for B2 (2% biodiesel

blend) since 2005, and Case has recently announced its acceptance of using B20 in approximately 85% of

its vehicles.44 At the Destiny USA project in Syracuse, NY, biodiesel has been successfully demonstrated

to run all diesel equipment for a large construction project on B100.45

Although many engines are able to run on B100, a petroleum/biodiesel mix such as B20 may provide

better performance. Biodiesel has better lubricity than low-sulfur or regular petroleum diesel, even at 1-

2% blends, which could improve engine performance. However, vehicles running on biodiesel may

experience problems in cold temperatures due to biodiesel’s higher cloud and pour points compared to

petroleum diesel. 46 An additional issue in using biodiesel is its decreased fuel economy in comparison to

petroleum diesel. While the mechanical efficiency of biodiesel and petroleum diesel is the same, the

energy content of biodiesel is 11% lower than that of petroleum diesel. Thus, EIA calculates that using

B20 may decrease fuel economy by 2.2%.47

Table 5 presents CO2 emissions factors for B100 and B20. Since the carbon from biofuels is assumed to

be emitted from other processes if the feedstock is not used for fuel, biofuels are conventionally assumed

to have zero net CO2 emissions. The emission factor for B100 indicates that 0 lbs of CO2 are emitted for

every gallon combusted, while 17.8 lbs of CO2 are emitted for one gallon of B20 because it contains 80%

petroleum diesel. The last two columns in the table present the estimated tons of CO2 emissions that could
February 2009 18

be reduced in the United States if all construction firms replaced 3% or 10% of their petroleum diesel

with biodiesel. If all U.S. construction firms switched to using B20 for 10% of their fuel purchases, CO2

emissions would be reduced by an estimated 2,970 million lbs (1.43 million metric tons). This would

represent an approximately 1% reduction in total construction sector emissions. A 10% switch to B100

use sector-wide would reduce total sector emissions by approximately 5%.

Table 5: GHG Emissions Reduction Scenarios from Increased Biodiesel Use

Estimate of Sector-Wide Emissions Reductions **

Fuel

Emissions*

(lbs CO2/gallon) Switching to 3% Biodiesel Switching to 10% Biodiesel

B100 0 lbs CO2/gallon 4,455 million lbs CO2

2.02 MMTCO2

14,850 million lbs CO2

6.73 MMTCO2

B20 17.8 lbs CO2/gallon 891 million lbs CO2

0.40 MMTCO2

2,970 million lbs CO2

1.43 MMTCO2

Notes: MMTCO2 = million metric tons of CO2.

* 100% biodiesel is conventionally assumed to have zero net carbon emissions. As B20 is a blend of 20% biodiesel and 80%

petroleum diesel, its emissions factor is calculated as 80% of the emissions of 100% petroleum diesel. Emissions factor for

diesel converted from EPA’s 2008 Inventory of Greenhouse Gases 1999-2006, Table A-29.

** Estimate of possible emissions reductions from a 3% or 10% switch from petroleum diesel to biodiesel are based on the

2002 fuel consumption estimates and assumptions used in the EPA report, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key

Industrial Sectors in the U.S. (May 2008). Numbers presented are for the purpose of illustrating the magnitude of sector-wide

reductions only and should not be interpreted as absolute quantities.

Although the majority of biodiesel retail stations are located near biodiesel refineries in the Midwest,

biodiesel blends are becoming increasingly available across the United States. The National Biodiesel

Board maintains an interactive map to find local sales, and sites such as BioTrucker.com provide

resources to locate truck-accessible locations.48

While biodiesel production is increasing rapidly and biodiesel is becoming more readily available, the

costs of using biodiesel may yet be prohibitive for some construction projects. As of March 2008,

wholesale biodiesel costs were approximately $4.60 per gallon for B100, whereas petroleum diesel was

available wholesale for $3.30 per gallon. Switching entirely to biodiesel therefore has the potential to

increase diesel fuel costs by 40%. The cost of biodiesel is not expected to decrease significantly in the

near future, as the high cost for soybean feedstock is currently the limiting factor in reducing biodiesel

production costs.49 In addition, as mentioned previously, the reduced fuel economy of biodiesel will

increase overall fuel consumption, which will further increase costs. Therefore, the use of biodiesel may

provide a potential for emissions reductions but is not likely a cost-effective solution for most contractors

at the present time.

ALTERNATIVES TO DIESEL GENERATORS

Diesel generators may consume as much fuel as a piece of construction equipment per hour, and are

generally operated over a longer period of time. For example, a large (500-kilowatt) generator that

consumes 15 gallons of diesel per hour emits about 346 lbs of CO2 (0.16 metric tons) at an average cost

of $35.30 per hour.50 Switching to dual-fuel generators using a mix of natural gas or propane and diesel

could provide a modest emissions benefit. For example, the same system using 95% natural gas and 5%

diesel would produce only 16.5 lbs CO2/gallon fuel, emitting less than 250 lbs of CO2 (0.11 metric tons)

per hour.51
February 2009 19

If grid electricity can be made available early at a construction site, using it may provide emissions

reductions over the use of diesel generators. Diesel generators typically produce 1.54 lbs CO2 emissions

per kWh of electricity, which is 15% more than the national average for purchased electricity emissions.52

However, the marginal benefit from using purchased (grid) electricity will vary depending on regional

differences in the fuel used for electricity generation (discussed further in Section 2.2).

Alternative energies, such as solar panels at offices or on-site trailers, may also provide an emissions

reduction solution that could also have long-term cost savings. For example, the SolaRover company

designs 5-, 10-, and 20-kilowatt solar panel trailers that provide electricity at 9 cents per kilowatt-hour

(kWh), displacing the need for diesel-powered generators and producing no direct GHG emissions.53 One

construction company was able to provide power for a team of 15 staff using a stationary solar-wind

generator combination.54

Data sources used to estimate construction industry emissions do not differentiate diesel used for

generators from that used for mobile equipment. Therefore, an illustrative example of sector-wide GHG

emissions reductions from using alternatives to diesel-fired generators could not be developed.

EMPLOYEE COMMUTING

Construction is a labor-intensive industry, with more than 7 million employees in the United States.55

Because of the large number of employees in the construction industry, employee commuting may be a

significant, yet often overlooked, source of GHG emissions in the industry.

Figure 8: Average GHG Emissions for Constructing Structural Assemblies

Construction Material GHG Emissions and Sources for

Structural Assemblies

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Wood Steel Concrete

Material

lbs/hundred ft

2

On-site Equipment Use

Equipment & Materials

Transportation

Worker Transportation

Notes: Values presented are estimated from the graphical results in the source.

lbs/hundred ft2= lbs GHG emissions (in CO2 equivalents) per hundred square feet material

Source: Raymond J. Cole, “Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with the Construction of Alternative Structural

Systems,” Building and Environment 34 (1999), pages 335 - 348.

One study, comparing GHG emissions associated with use of wood versus steel versus concrete structural

assemblies at a construction site, found that worker transportation to and from the site usually resulted in

greater GHG emissions than either the on-site equipment used or the transportation of equipment and
February 2009 20

materials to the site.56 The study concluded that the transportation of construction personnel to and from

the construction site contributed 5% to 85% of the total GHG emissions, depending on the assembly.

Averaged across the different structural assemblies, worker transportation accounted for 50–60% of the

on-site GHG emissions associated with wood or steel assemblies and 30% of the emissions for concrete

assemblies. See Figure 8 for the study’s results.

Emissions associated with employee commuting are not currently included in the GHG emissions

estimates for the construction sector presented in Section 1 of this report. GHG emissions associated with

employee commuting will vary by project. No data were found on average distance that employees

traveled to a construction site; therefore, no quantitative estimate of the national GHG impacts from

construction employee commuting could be calculated. Opportunities for reducing emissions associated

with commuting include establishing carpools or shuttle vans.

2.2 CONSERVING ELECTRICITY

Estimates presented in Section 1 indicate that approximately one-quarter of the construction sector’s

GHG emissions are associated with generating the electricity that the sector purchases. Electricity is used

to power central offices, and on construction sites where grid electricity is available, it is used to power

site lighting, trailers, and tools.

Table 6 illustrates how modest electricity conservation efforts can add up to significant GHG emissions

reductions, if implemented sector-wide. Using a national average CO2 emissions factor of 1.36 lbs CO2

per kWh of electricity, if all U.S. construction firms reduced their electricity use by 10%, the reduction in

CO2 emissions would be an estimated 6.9 billion lbs (3.13 million metric tons). This would represent an

almost 2.4% reduction in overall sector emissions.

Table 6: GHG Emissions Reduction Scenarios from Electricity Conservation

Estimate of Sector-Wide Emissions Reductions **

Source Emissions*

Using 3% less electricity Using 10% less electricity

Electricity 1.36 lbs CO2/ kWh

2.07 billion lbs CO2

0.93 MMTCO2

6.90 billion lbs CO2

3.13 MMTCO2

Electricity

1.37 lbs CO2

equivalents / kWh

2.08 billion lbs CO2 e

0.95 MMTCO2 e

6.95 billion lbs CO2 e

3.15 MMTCO2 e

Notes: MMTCO2 = million metric tons of CO2.

MMTCO2e = million metric tons of CO2 equivalents (includes CO2, CH4, and N2O)

*Emissions factor converted from eGRID emissions factor national averages for CO2, CH4, and N2O emitted during electricity

generation as of 2004. Note that other GHG emissions (CH4 and N2O) account for an additional 0.01 million lbs CO2

equivalents/million kWh in comparison to CO2.

** Estimate of possible emissions reductions from using 3% or 10% less electricity from the grid are based on the 2002

electricity consumption estimates and assumptions used in the EPA report, Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key

Industrial Sectors in the U.S. (May 2008). Numbers presented are for the purpose of illustrating the magnitude of sector-wide

reductions only and should not be interpreted as absolute quantities.

While Table 6 applies a national average CO2 emissions factor for electricity, the emissions factor varies

significantly in different regions based on the fuel mix used to generate electricity. Coal-dominant

production in East-Central states produces more GHG emissions per kWh of delivered electricity than

production using renewable energies such as hydroelectricity in Pacific Northwest states. For example,

2004 CO2 emissions factors for electricity output in Ohio and Pennsylvania are approximately four times
February 2009 21

greater than those of Oregon and Washington.57 Individual construction firms should consider these

regional differences when evaluating their opportunities for GHG reductions.

Reducing office electricity use offers additional opportunities to reduce GHG emissions for the sector.

EPA estimates that as much as 30% of the energy in a typical office building is wasted. From an analysis

of electricity load scenarios for various reduction policies, EPA suggests that 8% electricity reductions are

possible simply from switching lighting options, such as replacing incandescent light bulbs with compact

fluorescent lights. If operational and maintenance changes are made, such as replacing older heating and

cooling equipment with more-energy-efficient systems or shutting down computers at the end of the day,

EPA suggests that 12% reductions are possible. EPA reports that a combination of approaches may

reduce office electricity consumption by over 30%.58

GHG Emissions Impacts for Buildings: Given a common electricity consumption of 15.5 kWh

per square foot annually, reducing energy use by 30% in a typical office space of 50,000 square

feet would avoid 316,000 lbs (143 metric tons) of CO2 emissions per year. For a mobile office

trailer of 750 square feet, approximately 4,800 lbs (2.2 tons) of CO2 emissions would be avoided

(a 30% reduction per year).

Cost Impacts for Buildings: Reducing the amount of electricity purchased will lead to lower

operating costs as well as reductions in GHG emissions. EPA’s EnergySTAR program estimates

that reducing energy use by 30% in a 50,000 square foot office space can save $25,000 per year.59

Renewable energy-based electricity purchases may further reduce emissions, although the magnitude of

emissions reductions possible will depend on the percentage of renewable electricity available.

2.3 REDUCING IMPACTS OF CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS

Standard methods for estimating GHG emissions, such as those presented in Section 1, typically include

only traditionally quantified emissions sources, such as fossil fuel combustion and purchased electricity.

Some researchers take a more comprehensive approach by including the full lifecycle emissions

associated with an activity’s supply chain and waste management. For the construction sector, a lifecycle

approach could include the GHGs emitted from all construction materials used and disposed as well as the

fuel and electricity used for the materials’ production, use, and disposal. Although a comprehensive

construction-related lifecycle emissions inventory has not been conducted, there clearly are opportunities

to reduce emissions by recycling and/or reusing materials, improving shipping methods, and/or selecting

different materials.

RECYCLING AND REUSE

Wastes from new construction, renovation, and demolition projects generate about 25% of the total U.S.

solid waste volume.60 Energy is expended and GHGs are released during the manufacturing and

transportation of construction materials. When materials are reused or recycled, the associated emissions

that would have occurred during virgin material manufacturing are avoided. Recycling is the process of

reprocessing or reforming used materials into new products, while reuse is the process of using a

recovered, previously used product instead of a new product. As shown in Table 7, opportunities for

materials recycling or reuse exist across construction supplies. For example, two-thirds of recovered

asphalt is used for new asphalt hot mixes, and one-third is used as sub-base material for paved roads. In

practice, only asphalt, steel, metals, and concrete have been recycled or reused in significant volumes in

the United States, because there are established secondary markets for these used materials.
February 2009 22

Table 7: Secondary Use Markets for Various Construction and Demolition Materials

Material Generating Activity Recycling Markets Percent Substitutes for:

Road base 68% Virgin aggregate

Aggregate for new asphalt

hot-mixes 9% Virgin aggregate

General fill 7% Virgin aggregate

Other 7% Virgin aggregate

Aggregate for concrete mix 6% Virgin aggregate

Rip-rap 3% Virgin aggregate

CONCRETE

Building construction

Building demolition,

Infrastructure demolition

TOTAL 100%

Aggregate for new asphalt

hotmixes 66% Virgin aggregate

Sub-base for paved roads 33% Virgin aggregate

ASPHALT

PAVEMENT

Road, parking lot, and

driveway maintenance and

reconstruction

TOTAL 100%

Building deconstruction Recovered lumber remilled

into flooring Virgin lumber

Mulch and compost

Animal bedding

Feed stock for particle board

WOOD Building construction

Building demolition

Land clearing

Biomass fuel for boilers

Not

available Scrap wood from

sawmills, logging

debris

Gypsum wallboard Virgin gypsum

GYPSUM Portland cement Virgin gypsum

WALLBOARD

Building construction

Building demolition

Land application in

agriculture

Not

available

Virgin gypsum

Asphalt mixes

Road base

Virgin aggregate;

virgin bitumen ASPHALT

SHINGLES

Building construction

Building demolition

Building renovation Cement kilns

Not

available

Virgin aggregate

Note: With the exception of concrete and asphalt debris, which have well-established recycling markets, data are not well

documented concerning the quantities of wood, wallboard, and asphalt shingles used in various applications.

Source: U.S. EPA, Waste and Materials-Flow Benchmark Sector Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials - Construction &

Demolition Debris, draft in progress.61

EPA’s preliminary estimates indicate that 170 million tons of building-related construction and

demolition (C&D) materials were generated in the United States in 2003.62 Of that quantity, as much as

48% was recovered, and the remainder was disposed in a landfill.63Recovering these materials rather than

disposing of them may prove to be a significant opportunity to reduce GHG emissions, considering that

between 2000 and 2030, an estimated 27% of existing buildings will be replaced and 50% of the total

future building stock has yet to be constructed.64 Considerable uncertainty is associated with EPA’s C&D

materials estimates. For instance, the method used to estimate building-related materials relied on data

from a limited number of waste assessments, some of which were outdated. However, as there is no

centralized, national source for information on quantities of C&D materials generated or recycled, the

estimates in these reports are considered to be the best available data.

Table 8 presents the GHG emissions that currently are avoided through recycling various construction

materials. Most of the emissions factors in this table are from EPA’s WARM model, which includes

estimates of the emissions avoided during the extracting and processing of raw materials (e.g., the

emissions produced by bauxite mining for aluminum) as well as the emissions from the manufacturing of

the material.65, WARM offers an emissions factor for concrete recycling under the category “aggregates,”

which refers to the replacement of virgin crushed aggregate material with the concrete being recycled.66
February 2009 23

In addition, WARM offers the option to calculate emissions related to the transportation of these materials

to waste management facilities.

The recycling estimates in Table 8 are from multiple sources. For some of the materials, national

estimates could not be identified, especially for the less commonly recovered construction materials such

as plastics. For materials where recycling data are available, the CO2e emissions avoided are estimated.

For example, the table shows that for every ton of asphalt recycled from construction, 0.03 tons of CO2e

emissions are avoided. An estimated 139 million tons/year of asphalt are recycled in the United States,

resulting in 4.2 million tons of CO2e emissions avoided.67

Table 8: GHG Emissions Avoided through Recycling or Reuse of Construction and Demolition

Materials

Material

Emissions Factor

for Recycled

Material

(metric ton CO2e/

short ton material)

Recovery Rate ** Quantity of

Material Recycled

Annually in U.S.**

CO2e Emissions

Avoided

Through

Recycling

(metric tons CO2e)

Steel

1.79 97.5% (structural)

65% (reinforcement) 40 million tons 71,600,000

Carpet 7.18 4.6% 120,000 tons 862,000

Wood/Lumber 2.46 * * *

Plastics (mixed) 1.49 * * *

Aluminum 13.57 15% * *

Asphalt 0.03 80% 139 million tons 4,170,000

Concrete 0.01 * 140 million tons 1,400,000

Notes:

* Unknown.

** For construction-related quantities of the material, (e.g., 97.5% of structural steel used in construction, or 40 million tons/year, is

recycled).

Sources: Emissions factors for steel, carpet, wood, plastics, concrete (aggregate) and aluminum are from EPA’s Waste Reduction

Model—Results. Model estimate methodology from: Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle

Assessment of Emissions and Sinks (EPA530-R-02-006); available at: http://www.epa.gov/mswclimate/greengas.pdf.

Emissions factor for asphalt is from EPA’s Waste and Materials-Flow Benchmark Sector Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary

Materials - Construction & Demolition Debris, draft in progress.

Emissions factor for concrete is from Arpad Horvath, “Construction Materials and the Environment,” Annual Review of Environment

and Resources, 2004, p. 189.

Annual concrete recycled quantity is from CMRA, www.concreterecycling.org.

Steel recycling rates and quantity are from personal communication with Bill Heenan, President of the Steel Recycling Institute, and

“Fact sheet: 2006 rates,” http://www.recycle-steel.org/PDFs/2006Graphs.pdf. Of the 40 million tons recycled, approximately 28

tons are structural and 12 tons are reinforcement steel.

Carpet recycling rate is from http://www.carpetrecovery.org/pdf/annual_report/06_CARE-annual-rpt.pdf.

Asphalt recycled quantity is provided from personal communication of EPA estimates.

In addition to reducing GHG emissions, recycling may be more cost-effective than disposal. Tipping fees

at recycling centers are typically less than at landfills regardless of waste type; for example, in San Diego,

California, tipping fees for a ton of mixed construction waste could be $65 at a recycling center, but may
February 2009 24

be $85 to dispose of the same ton at a landfill.68 Even if a contractor must be hired to haul the materials to

recycling centers, recycling can provide enough of an incremental benefit to be economical.69 Costs or

savings associated with recycling C&D materials vary regionally, however. Since C&D materials are

primarily regulated at the state level, national information on the average costs, or even ranges of costs, is

not currently available. Even when recycling of C&D materials is cost-effective, other challenges remain,

including the lack of recycling information and a tendency to continue with familiar disposal practices.70

In recent years, some states have established regulations that limit disposal of certain C&D materials in

landfills.71 For example, Massachusetts requires a solid waste facility management plan that includes

recycling and composting, and limits disposal of asphalt, concrete, corrugated cardboard, brick, wood,

and scrap metal in landfills. In California, specific facilities handle inert C&D materials recycling and

C&D wood materials for chipping. While other factors (e.g., landfill space, fuel costs, green building

efforts) may be influential in determining the overall market for recycled material, markets would be

expected to expand if more states were to encourage recycling by limiting C&D disposal.

MATERIALS SELECTION, PROCUREMENT, AND SHIPMENT METHODS

The selection of materials with lower environmental impact provides a range of opportunities to reduce

GHG emissions, although emissions reductions vary considerably depending on the material.

Increasingly, the use of building materials with recycled content is supported as an acceptable measure for

GHG reductions.72 EPA’s ReCon tool, designed to compare the GHG impacts of material purchasing and

manufacturing, offers an option to evaluate the benefits of using common materials with various recycled

contents.73 Although useful for items such as lumber, copper, aluminum, or steel, ReCon does not provide

a listing of all items commonly used in the construction industry, nor does it provide estimates of the

monetary costs associated with using recycled materials. EPA’s Waste Reduction Model (WaRM),

designed to calculate emissions related to alternative waste management practices, offers a wide range of

materials and practices, and also estimates emissions related to the waste transportation.74 The BEES tool

is a comparative system designed to balance cost and environmental performance when selecting building

products, which may be useful in the decision-making process as it offers options to enter productspecific detail or compare generic categories.75 All three above tools attempt to provide full lifecycle

estimates of the material, such as emissions resulting from raw material acquisition, manufacture,

transportation, installation, use, and waste management. This life-cycle approach is not appropriate for

use in inventories because of the diffuse nature of the emissions and emission reductions within a single

emission factor.76

Delivery of materials to a construction site also results in GHG emissions. Reducing delivery-vehicle trips

to the construction site results in lower fuel consumption, which will contribute to reduced GHG

emissions. For large projects or group of projects in close proximity, creating a consolidated location for

materials delivery may reduce transport emissions by allowing contractors to request materials and

quantities closer to the time of use. For example, Transport for London in the UK established the London

Construction Consolidation Centre as a pilot project for centralizing construction deliveries. Construction

sites participating in the pilot project report that use of the Centre reduced road transportation to their sites

by 70%, and reduced waste by damage or other losses by 15%.77 Damage was reduced because materials

did not sit unprotected at the construction site. No similar facilities are known to operate in the United

States.

For shipments over a significant distance, switching transportation methods may also enable emissions

reductions. While originally designed for shipping, trucking, and logistics companies, EPA’s Freight

Logistics Environmental and Energy Tracking (FLEET) Performance Model can help quantify the current
February 2009 25

fuel use and emissions of shipments, as well as help evaluate the costs and effectiveness of future

emission reduction strategies.78

Buying locally produced lumber and other materials can reduce the emissions impacts of transporting

materials. The magnitude of these savings varies widely by the construction site location and the source

of the materials. Reducing transportation distances may also reduce the cost of hauling materials.
February 2009 26

3 CALCULATING COMPANY-SPECIFIC GREENHOUSE GAS

EMISSIONS

Emissions inventories are an accounting of a company’s greenhouse gas emissions and sources. In order

to construct an accurate inventory, a consistent and unambiguous method is essential. An accurate

inventory is a powerful resource for tracking annual emissions, identifying areas to reduce emissions, and

even for comparing emissions across companies. An inventory can provide additional value to a

construction company when used to inform clients about the firm’s environmental stewardship efforts.

Construction companies interviewed indicate the motivation for constructing an inventory is threefold: the

possible economic benefits from reduced fuel and electricity purchases, the intrinsic environmental

benefit from reduced emissions, and the marketing and public image benefits of being a proactive and

environmentally responsible community member.79

3.1 EXISTING CALCULATION GUIDANCE

To ensure that emissions are comparably calculated, various groups have developed spreadsheet or

software tools along with complementary protocols on classifying emissions. Most groups provide

generalized formats so the protocol can apply to the widest range of industries possible. Although

standardized spreadsheet calculators allow for comparisons of emissions across companies, the

generalization of sector-specific activities may result in over- or under-estimating emissions. To account

for this issue, some protocols include additional toolsets and guidance to calculate sector-specific

activities. Two of the best-known GHG inventory methods in the United States are:

 GHG Protocol Corporate Standard—Currently, the most commonly accepted protocol used to

identify emissions sources is the Corporate Standard guidance developed by the World

Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development

(WBCSD).80 This guidance document provides standards by which to measure CO2 and the five

other GHGs included in the Kyoto Protocol.81 The WRI/WBCSD Corporate Standard is

consistent with measures proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),

and now serves as the basis of the international reporting standard, the International Organization

for Standardization (ISO) guidance ISO14064-I.

82 These standards are not policy-based, meaning

the methods by which emissions are calculated are not determined or influenced by government

or state environmental policies. In the Corporate Standard, emissions are assigned to one of three

“scopes,” where Scope 1 includes emissions that directly result from company operations, such as

emissions from industrial operations. Scope 2 includes emissions resulting from energy

purchases, such as electricity generated off-site. Scope 3 includes all other associated emissions

from company operations, such as employee commuting, business travel, or subcontracted work.

Scope 3 may also include any measures of “upstream” emissions embedded in products

purchased by the firm and/or “downstream” emissions associated with transporting and disposing

of products sold by the firm, such as recycling.83 Companies are encouraged to report on all

possible direct and indirect emissions sources at all levels, although WRI considers only Scope 1

and 2 emissions reporting as a requirement of a corporate inventory.

 Climate Leaders Inventory Guidance—EPA’s Climate Leaders program is an industrygovernment partnership that works with companies to develop climate strategies. Partner
February 2009 27

companies commit to reducing their impact on the global environment by completing a corporatewide inventory of their GHG emissions, setting aggressive reduction goals, and annually

reporting their progress to EPA. EPA’s Climate Leaders Inventory Guidance is based on the

WRI/WBCSD Corporate Standard, and includes guidelines for setting GHG reduction goals in

addition to measuring current emissions. The Climate Leaders program requires the measurement

of indirect emissions from purchased electricity in addition to the direct emissions from fuel use,

industry processes, or refrigeration and air conditioning equipment.84 Goals are set based on the

companies’ Scope 1 and 2 emissions.

The WRI/WBCSD and Climate Leaders guidances are both accompanied by spreadsheet-based tools that

companies can use to create an annual inventory of their GHG emissions. The tools include emissions

factors for fuel combustion and purchased electricity, but neither protocol clearly addresses the challenges

specific to the construction industry. First, while companies in all sectors must consider how to assign

responsibility for emissions, this challenge is magnified in construction, where activities are so heavily

dependent on subcontractors. Using the WRI/WBCSD and Climate Leaders protocols, most emissions

from a general contractor that does not own heavy equipment would be related to the contractor’s office

operations. All emissions from subcontractors, and thus possibly all site emissions, would not be included

in the contractor’s Scope 1 or 2 emissions. Second, frequent use of heavy non-road equipment may

require modified approaches to emissions calculations, since emissions are affected by both the

equipment’s load and horsepower.85 Differences in highway and heavy equipment are not reflected in

standard emissions factors for calculations of CH4 and N2O emissions, which, although a small

component of total emissions, should be included in a complete inventory.86

3.2 CURRENT APPROACHES IN CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY INVENTORIES

As of October 2008, five companies with operations in the construction industry are members of EPA’s

Climate Leaders program. For this report, we asked these companies for their insight on the process and

challenges involved in completing an emissions inventory for construction activities. While the Climate

Leaders program requires a standardized emissions inventory for its application, none of the companies

rely solely on this guidance to inventory their activities. The level of detail in the firms’ calculations

varies significantly, although most firms follow or expand upon the WRI/WBCSD protocol. Some

companies attempt to include job-specific emissions, primarily to better inform clients of a project’s

likely environmental impact. Examples of construction firms’ approaches to calculating their GHG

emissions include:87

 Turner Construction’s inventory closely follows the WRI guidance and toolset, recording

corporate-owned activities such as corporate office emissions, corporate fleet vehicle emissions,

and emissions from any fuel use by corporate-owned equipment.88

 DPR Construction Inc. uses the WRI guidance as a starting point, and has added constructionspecific activities by developing its own database of activities to account for employee

commuting, corporate fleet vehicle use, and vehicle trips needed for the procurement of materials.

Their calculations factor in job site commuting by accounting for differences in workers’ vehicles

and days worked, and record variations in electricity emissions by using regionally specific

emissions factors available in EPA’s eGRID.89
February 2009 28

 Conestoga Rovers & Associates calculates emissions from purchased electricity for its corporate

offices, but considers emissions from electricity at the job site the client’s responsibility.90

 Aggregate Industries calculates office and job site emissions, but does not include electricity used

at its corporate headquarters.91

While these companies record the types and quantities of waste generated and recycled, none are

currently calculating emissions avoided through materials recycling. The lack of information on

emissions factors for various recycled materials, and the lack of guidance encouraging responsibility for

these emissions, has hindered such calculations.

In summary, even though standardized guidance is available, most companies are still grappling to define

the scope of calculations that best reflects the company’s operations. These companies’ experiences

emphasize the need for a calculator to document emissions from construction-specific activities, as well

as clearer protocols for defining the boundaries of an emissions inventory (e.g., client versus contractor or

subcontractor responsibilities).

3.3 CONSTRUCTION-SPECIFIC CALCULATION TOOL

As a complement to this report, EPA’s Sector Strategies Division is considering developing an easy-touse, spreadsheet-based tool for calculating a GHG emissions inventory, designed for construction

companies. Construction-specific detail is required in order to identify specific areas for emissions

reductions. While this tool has not yet been developed, the intention would be to add construction-related

information to the internationally recognized generic protocols.
February 2009 29

4 SUMMARY

Greenhouse gas emissions from the construction industry result from a wide range of activities by

hundreds of thousands of companies and sites across the country, producing 6% of all U.S. industrial

GHG emissions in 2002. Although aggregate emissions from this large sector are high, no single

construction site or company is a significant contributor. This document describes opportunities to make

modest company-level reductions, which, if put into practice throughout the industry, could reduce

emissions by millions of tons per year. Table 9 shows the estimated magnitude of reductions that could be

achieved if one combination of reduction scenarios were implemented sector-wide. The 5.5 million metric

ton decrease represents an approximately 4% cut in the sector’s emissions from fossil fuel and electricity

use. Further reductions could be achieved by increasing recycling.

Table 9: Scenario of Construction Sector-wide GHG Emissions Reductions

Activity Assumption Metric tons CO2e

Reduce Equipment Idling 10% reduction from all off-road diesel

heavy equipment

830,000

Improve Maintenance & Driver Training Combined practices to increase fuel

economy by 3% for heavy equipment 130,000

Increase Fuel Switching to Biodiesel (B20) Replace 10% of diesel use with B20 1,400,000

Improve Electricity Conservation Combined practices to reduce total

electricity use by 10% 3,100,000

Additional lifecycle emissions:

Increase Materials Recycling *

Steel Recycle an additional 3% 2,150,000

Asphalt Recycle an additional 5% 210,000

Concrete Recycle an additional 10% 140,000

Total Scenario Emissions Reductions with recycling 7,960,000

Total Scenario Emission Reductions without recycling 5,460,000

Notes: Source data compiled from various government, academic, and industry documents; see endnotes for further details.92

*

For construction-related quantities of the material.

To develop Table 9, many assumptions and estimates had to be made when data were unavailable,

resulting in significant uncertainty. More research and data specific to construction are needed to provide

more-refined estimates of the potential for sector-wide GHG reductions. In particular, data are lacking on

the number of pieces of construction equipment by type, their annual operating hours, their current fuel

efficiency, and their emissions while idling. Data on construction and demolition materials recycling is

not tracked nationally, and extrapolating the data that are available to the national level also results in

uncertainty. As future research fills in the missing pieces of data, the construction sector will be able to

better target emission reduction opportunities and quantify results.

Meanwhile, the construction industry can demonstrate the importance of individual firms’ decisions in

affecting GHG emissions. Based on currently available information, it appears construction firms will

need to make changes in multiple areas – fossil fuel consumption, electricity use, and materials recycling

– to realize meaningful sector-wide reductions. With the increased awareness of and demand for green
February 2009 30

construction in recent years, the construction industry has demonstrated its ability to play a leadership role

in promoting environmental stewardship. In addressing the global environmental challenge of climate

change, many construction firms have already taken the initiative to track and reduce the climate impacts

of their operations. A better understanding of the sources and magnitude of each firm’s impacts will

enable many more construction firms to contribute to the climate change solution in the years ahead.
February 2009 31

APPENDIX A: SUBSECTOR SIZE AND SOURCES OF EMISSIONS

Estimated Subsector Emissions by Source

Number of (MMTCO2e) (MMTCO2e) (million metric tons CO2)

2002

NAICS NAICS Subsector description

Establishments Total

All Sources

Purchased

electricity

Natural

Gas

Vehicle fuel use

onhighwayoffhighway subtotal

Absolute values

236 Construction of Buildings

23611 Residential building construction 171,662 24.28 8.13 3.42 10.35 2.37 12.73

23621 Industrial building construction 2,777 1.68 0.48 0.13 0.75 0.32 1.07

23622 Commercial and institutional building construction 37,208 16.21 5.99 1.55 6.79 1.87 8.67

237 Heavy & Civil Engineering Construction

23711 Water and sewer line and related structures construction 12,357 5.98 0.07 0.24 2.43 3.24 5.67

23712 Oil and gas pipeline and related structures construction 1,403 0.92 0.19 0.73 0.73

23713 Power & communication line & related structures 6,034 3.29 0.58 0.19 2.40 0.12 2.52

23721 Land subdivision 8,403 1.61 1.16 0.45 0.45

23731 Highway, street, and bridge construction 11,239 17.64 2.04 1.62 5.82 8.16 13.98

23799 Other heavy and civil engineering construction 10,502 4.48 0.86 0.29 0.17 3.16 3.33

238 Specialty Trade Contractors

23811 Poured concrete foundation and structure contractors 27,151 4.33 0.07 0.27 3.01 0.98 3.99

23812 Structural steel, precast concrete erection contractors 4,321 1.41 0.31 0.17 0.66 0.27 0.93

23813 Framing contractors: Carpentry 14,455 1.09 0.20 0.06 0.81 0.02 0.83

23814 Masonry contractors 25,720 2.47 0.35 0.16 1.53 0.42 1.95

23815 Glass and glazing contractors 5,294 0.62 0.02 0.07 0.46 0.06 0.52

23816 Roofing contractors 23,192 3.69 0.61 0.50 2.25 0.33 2.58

23817 Siding contractors 6,632 0.58 0.09 0.04 0.41 0.04 0.45

23819 Other foundation, structure, bldg exterior contractors 2,786 0.43 0.10 0.03 0.25 0.05 0.30

23821 Electrical Contractors 62,586 9.23 2.14 0.05 6.27 0.77 7.04
February 2009 32

Estimated Subsector Emissions by Source

Number of (MMTCO2e) (MMTCO2e) (million metric tons CO2)

2002

NAICS NAICS Subsector description

Establishments Total

All Sources

Purchased

electricity

Natural

Gas

Vehicle fuel use

onhighwayoffhighway subtotal

23822 Plumbing, heating, and air conditioning contractors 87,501 6.67 3.57 1.30 1.70 0.09 1.80

23829 Other building equipment contractors 6,087 1.68 0.37 0.01 1.05 0.25 1.30

23831 Drywall and insulation contractors 19,598 0.57 0.06 0.23 0.24 0.03 0.27

23832 Painting and wall covering contractors 38,943 2.68 0.57 0.15 1.60 0.36 1.96

23833 Flooring contractors 12,865 1.42 0.42 0.14 0.84 0.03 0.86

23834 Tile and terrazzo contractors 8,950 0.71 0.17 0.06 0.43 0.05 0.48

23835 Finish carpentry contractors 35,087 2.81 0.68 0.24 1.62 0.27 1.89

23839 Other building finishing contractors 3,729 0.67 0.14 0.07 0.39 0.07 0.46

23891 Site preparation contractors 30,496 8.21 0.91 0.45 0.44 6.41 6.85

23899 All other specialty trade contractors 33,452 6.28 1.21 0.43 3.37 1.27 4.65

Percent of all construction subsectors

236 Construction of Buildings

23611 Residential building construction 24.16% 18.43% 25.82% 28.79% 18.09% 7.66% 14.42%

23621 Industrial building construction 0.39% 1.28% 1.52% 1.09% 1.32% 1.02% 1.21%

23622 Commercial and institutional building construction 5.24% 12.29% 19.02% 13.05% 11.87% 6.03% 9.82%

237 Heavy & Civil Engineering Construction

23711 Water and sewer line and related structures construction 1.74% 4.53% 0.21% 2.02% 4.25% 10.46% 6.43%

23712 Oil and gas pipeline and related structures construction 0.20% 0.73% 0.60% 1.28% 0.83%

23713 Power & communication line & related structures 0.85% 2.59% 1.83% 1.59% 4.20% 0.38% 2.86%

23721 Land subdivision 1.18% 1.20% 3.68% 0.79% 0.51%

23731 Highway, street, and bridge construction 1.58% 13.22% 6.49% 13.63% 10.17% 26.30% 15.84%

23799 Other heavy and civil engineering construction 1.48% 3.23% 2.74% 2.43% 0.30% 10.19% 3.78%

238 Specialty Trade Contractors

23811 Poured concrete foundation and structure contractors 3.82% 3.40% 0.21% 2.30% 5.26% 3.16% 4.52%

23812 Structural steel, precast concrete erection contractors 0.61% 1.08% 1.00% 1.40% 1.15% 0.89% 1.05%

23813 Framing contractors: Carpentry 2.03% 0.86% 0.64% 0.47% 1.41% 0.07% 0.94%

23814 Masonry contractors 3.62% 1.92% 1.13% 1.38% 2.67% 1.37% 2.21%
February 2009 33

Estimated Subsector Emissions by Source

Number of (MMTCO2e) (MMTCO2e) (million metric tons CO2)

2002

NAICS NAICS Subsector description

Establishments Total

All Sources

Purchased

electricity

Natural

Gas

Vehicle fuel use

onhighwayoffhighway subtotal

23815 Glass and glazing contractors 0.75% 0.49% 0.08% 0.63% 0.81% 0.18% 0.59%

23816 Roofing contractors 3.26% 2.87% 1.93% 4.25% 3.93% 1.06% 2.92%

23817 Siding contractors 0.93% 0.45% 0.29% 0.35% 0.71% 0.13% 0.51%

23819 Other foundation, structure, bldg exterior contractors 0.39% 0.34% 0.32% 0.29% 0.43% 0.16% 0.34%

23821 Electrical contractors 8.81% 7.23% 6.78% 0.44% 10.95% 2.49% 7.98%

23822 Plumbing, heating, and air conditioning contractors 12.32% 4.95% 11.33% 10.93% 2.98% 0.30% 2.04%

23829 Other building equipment contractors 0.86% 1.31% 1.17% 0.12% 1.84% 0.80% 1.47%

23831 Drywall and insulation contractors 2.76% 0.43% 0.21% 1.96% 0.42% 0.10% 0.31%

23832 Painting and wall covering contractors 5.48% 2.08% 1.80% 1.29% 2.79% 1.17% 2.22%

23833 Flooring contractors 1.81% 1.10% 1.32% 1.14% 1.46% 0.09% 0.98%

23834 Tile and terrazzo contractors 1.26% 0.55% 0.54% 0.50% 0.76% 0.16% 0.55%

23835 Finish carpentry contractors 4.94% 2.17% 2.17% 2.01% 2.82% 0.87% 2.14%

23839 Other building finishing contractors 0.52% 0.52% 0.45% 0.55% 0.68% 0.22% 0.52%

23891 Site preparation contractors 4.29% 5.93% 2.88% 3.81% 0.78% 20.65% 7.76%

23899 All other specialty trade contractors 4.71% 4.83% 3.83% 3.60% 5.89% 4.11% 5.26%

Source: Number of Establishments, fuel, and electricity purchases collected from 2002 U.S. Economic Census Industry Series reports for Construction (NAICS

23). Fuel and electricity purchases were converted into emissions using the method provided in the EPA Sector Strategies Division report, Quantifying

Greenhouse Gases in Key Industrial Sectors of the U.S., May 2008.
February 2009 34

APPENDIX B: DETAILS OF 2002 CONSTRUCTION SUBSECTOR EMISSIONS INTENSITY

2002 Emissions Value Added Intensity

NAICS

code NAICS Subsector description (million metric

tons of CO2e)

2002

(thousand dollars)

(MTCO2e/

2002k$)

236 Construction of Buildings

23611 Residential building construction 24.28 93,736,269 0.26

23621 Industrial building construction 1.68 6,252,044 0.27

23622 Commercial and institutional building construction 16.21 71,881,873 0.23

237 Heavy & Civil Engineering Construction

23711 Water and sewer line and related structures construction 5.98 16,021,682 0.37

23712 Oil and gas pipeline and related structures construction 0.92 7,662,710 0.12

23713 Power and communication line and related structures construction 3.29 23,045,082 0.14

23721 Land subdivision 1.61 14,374,486 0.11

23731 Highway, street, and bridge construction 17.64 36,210,630 0.49

23799 Other heavy and civil engineering construction 4.48 12,042,082 0.37

238 Specialty Trade Contractors

23811 Poured concrete foundation and structure contractors 4.33 18,211,099 0.24

23812 Structural steel and precast concrete/ Structural steel erection contractors 1.41 5,823,411 0.24

23813 Framing contractors: Carpentry 1.09 8,587,264 0.13

23814 Masonry contractors 2.47 13,174,159 0.19

23815 Glass and glazing contractors 0.62 3,513,111 0.18

23816 Roofing contractors 3.69 12,800,818 0.29

23817 Siding contractors 0.58 2,262,269 0.26

23819 Other foundation, structure, and building exterior contractors 0.43 2,045,722 0.21

23821 Electrical contractors 9.23 51,676,783 0.18

23822 Plumbing, heating, and air conditioning contractors 6.67 66,878,082 0.10

23829 Other building equipment contractors 1.68 10,092,652 0.17

23831 Drywall and insulation contractors 0.57 18,042,291 0.03

23832 Painting and wall covering contractors 2.68 11,516,137 0.23

23833 Flooring contractors 1.42 4,868,960 0.29

23834 Tile and terrazzo contractors 0.71 3,753,983 0.19

23835 Finish carpentry contractors 2.81 9,762,425 0.29
February 2009 35

2002

NAICS

code

Emissions Value Added Intensity

NAICS Subsector description (million metric

tons of CO2e)

2002

(thousand dollars)

(MTCO2e/

2002k$)

23839 Other building finishing contractors 0.67 3,403,706 0.20

23891 Site preparation contractors 8.21 23,114,914 0.36

23899 All other specialty trade contractors 6.28 15,339,069 0.41

Source: Emissions were calculated by subsector for fuel and electricity purchases collected from 2002 U.S. Economic Census Industry Series reports for

Construction (NAICS 23). Fuel and electricity purchases were converted into emissions using the method provided in the EPA Sector Strategies Division report,

Quantifying Greenhouse Gases in Key Industrial Sectors of the U.S., May 2008. Value added collected for each subsector from 2002 U.S. Economic Census

Industry Series reports for Construction (NAICS Sector 23). Selected Statistics for Establishments by Specialization. Released November 21, 2005.
February 2009 36

APPENDIX C: CONSTRUCTION SUBSECTOR DESCRIPTIONS OF 2002 NAICS CODES

Code Title Description

23611 Residential building construction

Establishments primarily responsible for the construction or remodeling and renovation of single-family and multifamily

residential buildings. Included in this industry are residential housing general contractors (i.e., new construction,

remodeling or renovating existing residential structures), operative builders and remodelers of residential structures,

residential project construction management firms, and residential design-build firms.

23621 Industrial building construction

Establishments primarily responsible for the construction (including new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and

repairs) of industrial buildings (except warehouses). The construction of selected additional structures, whose

production processes are similar to those for industrial buildings (e.g., incinerators, cement plants, blast furnaces, and

similar nonbuilding structures), is included in this industry. Included in this industry are industrial building general

contractors, industrial building operative builders, industrial building design-build firms, and industrial building

construction management firms.

23622 Commercial and institutional

building construction

Establishments primarily responsible for the construction (including new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and

repairs) of commercial and institutional buildings and related structures, such as stadiums, grain elevators, and indoor

swimming pools. This industry includes establishments responsible for the on-site assembly of modular or prefabricated

commercial and institutional buildings. Included in this industry are commercial and institutional building general

contractors, commercial and institutional building operative builders, commercial and institutional building design-build

firms, and commercial and institutional building project construction management firms.

23711 Water and sewer line and related

structures construction

Establishments primarily engaged in the construction of water and sewer lines, mains, pumping stations, treatment

plants and storage tanks. The work performed may include new work, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and repairs.

Specialty trade contractors are included in this group if they are engaged in activities primarily related to water and

sewer line and related structures construction. All structures (including buildings) that are integral parts of water and

sewer networks (e.g., storage tanks, pumping stations, water treatment plants, and sewage treatment plants) are

included in this industry.

23712 Oil and gas pipeline and related

structures construction

Establishments primarily engaged in the construction of oil and gas lines, mains, refineries, and storage tanks. The

work performed may include new work, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and repairs. Specialty trade contractors are

included in this group if they are engaged in activities primarily related to oil and gas pipeline and related structures

construction. All structures (including buildings) that are integral parts of oil and gas networks (e.g., storage tanks,

pumping stations, and refineries) are included in this industry.

23713

Power and communication line

and related structures

construction

Establishments primarily engaged in the construction of power lines and towers, power plants, and radio, television,

and telecommunications transmitting/receiving towers. The work performed may include new work, reconstruction,

rehabilitation, and repairs. Specialty trade contractors are included in this group if they are engaged in activities

primarily related to power and communication line and related structures construction. All structures (including

buildings) that are integral parts of power and communication networks (e.g., transmitting towers, substations, and

power plants) are included.
February 2009 37

Code Title Description

23721 Land subdivision

Establishments primarily engaged in servicing land and subdividing real property into lots, for subsequent sale to

builders. Servicing of land may include excavation work for the installation of roads and utility lines. The extent of work

may vary from project to project. Land subdivision precedes building activity and the subsequent building is often

residential, but may also be commercial tracts and industrial parks. These establishments may do all the work

themselves or subcontract the work to others. Establishments that perform only the legal subdivision of land are not

included in this industry.

23731 Highway, street, and bridge

construction

Establishments primarily engaged in the construction of highways (including elevated), streets, roads, airport runways,

public sidewalks, or bridges. The work performed may include new work, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and repairs.

Specialty trade contractors are included in this group if they are engaged in activities primarily related to highway,

street, and bridge construction (e.g., installing guardrails on highways).

23799 Other heavy and civil engineering

construction

Establishments primarily engaged in heavy and engineering construction projects (excluding highway, street, bridge,

and distribution line construction). The work performed may include new work, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and

repairs. Specialty trade contractors are included in this group if they are engaged in activities primarily related to

engineering construction projects (excluding highway, street, bridge, distribution line, oil and gas structure, and utilities

building and structure construction). Construction projects involving water resources (e.g., dredging and land drainage),

development of marine facilities, and projects involving open space improvement (e.g., parks and trails) are included in

this industry.

23811 Poured concrete foundation and

structure contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in pouring and finishing concrete foundations and structural elements. This industry

also includes establishments performing grout and shotcrete work. The work performed may include new work,

additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23812

Structural steel and precast

concrete/ Structural steel erection

contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in: (1) erecting and assembling structural parts made from steel or precast concrete

(e.g., steel beams, structural steel components, and similar products of precast concrete); and/or (2) assembling and

installing other steel construction products (e.g., steel rods, bars, rebar, mesh, and cages) to reinforce poured-in-place

concrete. The work performed may include new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23813 Framing contractors: Carpentry Establishments primarily engaged in structural framing and sheathing using materials other than structural steel or

concrete. The work performed may include new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23814 Masonry contractors Establishments primarily engaged in masonry work, stone setting, bricklaying, and other stone work. The work

performed may include new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23815 Glass and glazing contractors Establishments primarily engaged in installing glass panes in prepared openings (i.e., glazing work) and other glass

work for buildings. The work performed may include new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23816 Roofing contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in roofing. This industry also includes establishments treating roofs (i.e., spraying,

painting, or coating) and installing skylights. The work performed may include new work, additions, alterations,

maintenance, and repairs.

23817 Siding contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in installing siding of wood, aluminum, vinyl or other exterior finish material (except

brick, stone, stucco, or curtain wall). This industry also includes establishments installing gutters and downspouts. The

work performed may include new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23819 Other foundation, structure, and

building exterior contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in building foundation and structure trades work (except poured concrete, structural

steel, precast concrete, framing, masonry, glass and glazing, roofing, and siding). The work performed may include

new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.
February 2009 38

Code Title Description

23821 Electrical contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in installing and servicing electrical wiring and equipment. Electrical contractors

included in this industry may include both the parts and labor when performing work. Electrical contractors may perform

new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23822

Plumbing, heating, and air

conditioning contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in installing and servicing plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning equipment.

Contractors in this industry may provide both parts and labor when performing work. The work performed may include

new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23829

Other building equipment

contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in installing or servicing building equipment (except electrical; plumbing; heating,

cooling, or ventilation equipment). The repair and maintenance of miscellaneous building equipment is included in this

industry. The work performed may include new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23831 Drywall and insulation contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in drywall, plaster work, and building insulation work. Plaster work includes applying

plain or ornamental plaster, and installation of lath to receive plaster. The work performed may include new work,

additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23832

Painting and wall covering

contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in interior or exterior painting or interior wall covering. The work performed may

include new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23833 Flooring contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in the installation of resilient floor tile, carpeting, linoleum, and hard wood flooring.

The work performed may include new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23834 Tile and terrazzo contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in setting and installing ceramic tile, stone (interior only), and mosaic and/or mixing

marble particles and cement to make terrazzo at the job site. The work performed may include new work, additions,

alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23835 Finish carpentry contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in finish carpentry work. The work performed may include new work, additions,

alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

23839

Other building finishing

contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in building finishing trade work (except drywall, plaster and insulation work; painting

and wall covering work; flooring work; tile and terrazzo work; and finish carpentry work). The work performed may

include new work, additions, alterations, or maintenance and repairs.

23891 Site preparation contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in site preparation activities, such as excavating and grading, demolition of buildings

and other structures, septic system installation, and house moving. Earth moving and land clearing for all types of sites

(e.g., building, nonbuilding, mining) is included in this industry. Establishments primarily engaged in construction

equipment rental with operator (except cranes) are also included.

23899

All other specialty trade

contractors

Establishments primarily engaged in specialized trades (except foundation, structure, and building exterior contractors;

building equipment contractors; building finishing contractors; and site preparation contractors). The specialty trade

work performed includes new work, additions, alterations, maintenance, and repairs.

Source: All descriptions reproduced from subsector definitions according to the U.S. Census Bureau for NAICS code 23 (Construction).U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 NAICS

Codes and Titles, Construction, March 23, 2004, http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/naicod02.htm, accessed October 6, 2008 Available at:

http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/data/us/US000_23.HTM.
February 2009 39

ENDNOTES

1 U.S. EPA, “Basic Information,” Climate Change. Accessed January 22, 2009.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basicinfo.html

2 Ibid.

3 U.S. Census Bureau,“23 Construction,” 2002 NAICS Definitions. May 6, 2003. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/epcd/naics02/def/NDEF23.HTM

BusinessDictionary.com, “construction industry.” Definition, 2009 Available at:

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/construction-industry.html

4 U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns (CBP), 2006, available at:

http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html.

5 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), Quantifying Greenhouse Gas Emissions in Key

Industrial Sectors, Sector Strategies Division, May 2008.

6 Emissions calculated for Sector Strategies, based on the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) 2002

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey and EPA’s Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and

Sinks: 1990-2006. U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), 2002

Manufacturing Energy Consumption Survey, 2005. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Inventory of

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2006, 2008.

7 Methane (CH4) emissions from uncontrolled heavy-duty gasoline vehicles are estimated by the U.S. EPA’s

NONROAD model to be 20 times the emissions from equipment with low-emissions vehicle technology.

IPCC, 2006 National Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories, 2006, Table 3.2.3. Available online at:

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_3_Ch3_Mobile_Combustion.pdf

8 2004 state electricity emissions factors for CO2, CH4, and N2O. EPA, eGRID, available at:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html.

9 The AEO 2008 produces estimates as model output of the EIA National Energy Modeling System’s

Industrial Sector Demand module, based on the following sources: DOE’s 2002 Manufacturing Energy

Consumption Survey; aggregated construction sector data of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Census

Bureau, Economic Census 2002: Construction Industry Series; the EIA’s Fuel Oil and Kerosene Sales

2002; and EIA’s 2006 release of State Energy Data System 2003. In order to calculate energy

consumption, these estimates delineate fuel usage per value output as Unit Energy Consumption (UEC)

ratios, since the source data relate to total energy consumption and provide no information on the

processes or end-uses. For diesel, gasoline, and purchased electricity, CO2 emissions are calculated as the

product of an EIA emissions factor and the modeled energy consumption.

10 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census: Industry Series Reports, Construction. November 22, 2005.

Available online at: http://www.census.gov/econ/census02/guide/INDRPT23.HTM.

11 For example, EIA calculates that about 97% (1902.5 MMT CO2e) of total fossil fuel combustion from

mobile sources in 2007 is CO2; the remaining 3% of emissions are CH4 and N2O (respectively 5.1 and

56.2 MMT CO2e). This report does not attempt to correct the fossil fuel consumption estimates of the

source document to account for these additional gases. In order to provide the analyses of total sector and

subsector emissions in this report, CO2 and CO2e emissions are summed for simplification.

EIA,“Greenhouse Gas Emissions in the U.S. Economy, Emissions of Greenhouse Gases Report. 2008

Available at: http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggrpt/index.html#economy
February 2009 40

12 U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration (EIA), Annual Energy Outlook 2008, pp.

55 and 63.

13 The six other sectors are those that were included in both the AEO 2008 and the Quantifying Greenhouse

Gas Emissions in Key Industrial Sectors reports. These are: food, paper, chemical (bulk chemical in AEO

and all chemical manufacturing is the EPA report), cement, aluminum, and iron & steel.

14 Comparable sectors (and average annual emissions rate for 2011-2030) include the food (0.29%/yr), paper

(0.01%/yr), bulk chemical (-1.08%/yr), cement (-0.32%/yr), aluminum (-0.72%/yr), and iron and steel

industries(-0.07%/yr).

15 Aurora L. Sharrard, H. Scott Matthews, and Michael Roth, “Environmental Implications of Construction

Site Energy Use and Electricity Generation,” Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol.

133, No. 11, November 1, 2007.

16 For example, Connecticut limits idling of all motor sources (including off-road engines) to three minutes.

For additional information and regulations of other states, see http://www.epa.gov/otaq/smartway/idlestate.htm.

17 U.S. EPA, Low Cost Ways to Reduce Air Emissions from Off-Road Diesel Construction Equipment, 2006.

18 Estimates are calculated from an idling study of long-haul trucks, as no construction equipment-specific

studies are available. Lim, Han. Study of Exhaust Emissions from Idling Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks and

Commercially Available Idle-Reducing Devices, U.S. EPA, October 2002. Table 7.

http://www.epa.gov/oms/smartway/documents/epaidlingtesting.pdf

19 Huai et al., “Analysis of heavy-duty diesel truck activity and emissions data,” Atmospheric Environment

40: 2333-2344, 2006.

20 Analysis by Christopher Steel, Grace Pacific Corporation. E-mail correspondence with Peter Truitt, U.S.

EPA. 1 October 2007.

21 The 2006 U.S. Census indicates 802,349 total construction establishments. On average, it is assumed each

firm of any size can reduce diesel idling by 10 hours per month, with an average emissions factor of 15 lbs

CO2 per hour from a 2001 model year Class 8 engine. 802,349 firms x 15 lbs CO2/hour x 120 hours/year

= 1.44 billion lbs CO2/year = 0.65 million metric tons CO2/ year

22 U.S. EPA. “Engine and Vehicle Emissions Reductions,” March 2007, available at:

http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2007/2007_sbir_phase1.html, and Lim, Han. Study of Exhaust Emissions from

Idling Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks and Commercially Available Idle-Reducing Devices, U.S. EPA, October

2002.

23 Argonne National Laboratory, http://www.transportation.anl.gov/downloads/idling_worksheet.xls.

24 Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration, “Carbon Monoxide Hazards from Internal

Combustion Engines: Properly Maintained Forklifts Cost Significantly Less to Operate,”

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/cis_wsh_cet5011_115680_7.doc.

25 This estimate assumes a typical diesel pickup with an average fuel economy of 15 mpg, traveling 15,000

miles per year, to be applicable for construction company transportation fleets or establishments without

heavy equipment. Assumptions based on review of average vehicle fuel economy data from weblog

responses and EPA fuel economy ratings for used vehicles. U.S. EPA, “Diesel Vehicles,” 2008.

https://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/diesel.shtml

26 2007 U.S. annual No.2 diesel fuel average cost: EIA, "No. 2 Distillate Prices by Sales Type." Released

September 30, 2008. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_dist_dcu_nus_a.htm
February 2009 41

27 Giles Lambertson, “Manufacturers Begin to Tout Fuel Efficiency,” Construction Equipment Guide.com,

July 16, 2008, http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/story.asp?story=10902.

28 2007 U.S. annual No.2 diesel fuel average cost: EIA, "No. 2 Distillate Prices by Sales Type." Released

September 30, 2008. http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pri_dist_dcu_nus_a.htm

29 Giles Lambertson, “Manufacturers Begin to Tout Fuel Efficiency,” Construction Equipment Guide.com,

July 16, 2008, http://www.constructionequipmentguide.com/story.asp?story=10902.

30 Ibid.

31 Articles.DirectoryM.net, “Maximize Fuel Economy: Truck manufacturers offer advice to cut fuel

consumption,” July 28, 2008, http://articles.directorym.net/Maximize_Fuel_Economy-a878656.html.

32 Gary Gotting, Machine Design, March 6, 2008.

33 Power Source. John Deere. Vol 4, 2005.

34 Duncan, Andy. “Application compensation.” July 2008.

http://www.etrucker.com/apps/news/article.asp?id=70341

35 Example based on similar calculation for repowering engines published in the EPA report Cleaner Diesel:

Low-cost Ways to Reduce Emissions from Construction Equipment, March 2007.

36 Ibid.

37 Some examples of engine costs are provided in the EPA report Cleaner Diesel: Low-cost Ways to Reduce

Emissions from Construction Equipment, March 2007.

38 Calculation from biodiesel refinery feedstock listings of the Center for Agricultural Research and

Development, current as of May 6, 2008. http://www.card.iastate.edu/research/bio/tools/biodiesel.aspx

39 Specification for ASTM D6751 (B(100)). Available at:

http://www.biodiesel.org/pdf_files/fuelfactsheets/BDSpec.pdf.

40 Renewable Fuels Agency, The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production, July 2008,

Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/rfa/_db/_documents/Report_of_the_Gallagher_review.pdf.

41 E4Tech, Biofuels Review: GHG Savings Calculations, June 2008. Available at:

http://www.dft.gov.uk/rfa/_db/_documents/E4Tech_GHG_saving_calculations.pdf.

42 Renewable Fuels Agency, The Gallagher Review of the Indirect Effects of Biofuels Production, July 2008,

Available at: http://www.dft.gov.uk/rfa/_db/_documents/Report_of_the_Gallagher_review.pdf.

43 U.S. DOE, Lifetime Cycle Inventory of Biodiesel and Petroleum Diesel for Use on an Urban Transit Bus,

May 1998. Available at: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/legosti/fy98/24089.pdf. Graphic with ethanol

comparison from Kansas Energy Book, 2007. Available at:

http://kec.kansas.gov/chart_book/Chapter5/03_LifeCycleGHGEmissions.pdf.

44 “Case Approves Use of B20 Biodiesel Blends for Construction Equipment,” Reuters, June 17, 2008.

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS134674+17-Jun-2008+MW20080617.

45 Mike Stinson and Josh Canner, “Technology, Green Construction at Destiny USA,” Associated

Construction Publications, October 6, 2008. http://www.acppubs.com/article/CA6598346.html.

46 Anthony Radich, Biodiesel Performance, Costs and Use, EIA. Available at:

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/analysispaper/biodiesel/.
February 2009 42

47 Ibid.

48 National Biodiesel Board, http://www.biodiesel.org/buyingBioDiesel/retailfuelingsites/; BioTrucker.com,

Available at: http://www.biotrucker.com/sites/.

49 Marianne Lavelle, “Going Biodiesel is No Cheap Alternative,” U.S. News and World Reports, March 25,

2008.

50 Emissions calculation based on AP-42 emissions standard for diesel stationary combustion sources and

EIA calculation of diesel BTU content, resulting in a factor of 22.88 lbs CO2 emitted per gallon of diesel.

Average diesel cost from EIA prices. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s04.pdf.

51 Emissions calculation based on AP-42 emissions standard for duel-fuel stationary combustion sources and

EIA calculation of diesel and natural gas BTU content. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s04.pdf.

52 Percent comparison of national electricity emissions factor of 1.36 lbs CO2/kWh from EPA’s eGRID, as

of 2004, and the EPA emissions factor for uncontrolled diesel stationary combustion. U.S. EPA, AP 42,

Fifth Edition, Volume I, Chapter 3: Stationary Internal Combustion Sources, Table 3.31, Emissions factors

for uncontrolled gasoline and diesel industrial engines, June 2007. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/ap42/ch03/final/c03s03.pdf

53 Emma Ritch, “Sprig Electric Plugs into Mobile? Solar Trailers,” San Jose Business Journal, July 4, 2008.

54 Canadice Construction Company, “Alternative Energy Products,”

http://canadiceconstruction.com/alternativeenergyproducts.nxg.

55 U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns (CBP), 2006. Available at:

http://www.census.gov/epcd/cbp/view/cbpview.html.

56 Raymond J. Cole, “Energy and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Associated with the Construction of

Alternative Structural Systems,” Building and Environment 34 (1999), pages 335 - 348.

57 U.S. EPA, Emissions & Generation Resource Integrated Database (eGRID) version 2.1. Available at:

http://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/egrid/index.html

58 U.S. EPA, “Office Building Energy Use Profile,” National Action Plan for Energy Efficiency, Sector

Collaborative on Energy Efficiency, June 2007. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/solar/documents/sectormeeting/4bi_officebuilding.pdf.

59 U.S. EPA, “Corporate Real Estate Fact Sheet,” Energy STAR,

http://www.energystar.gov/ia/business/corp_real_estate/factsheet_0804.pdf.

60 “C&D Debris State Resources.” Construction Industry Compliance Assistance Center.

http://www.cicacenter.org/solidregs.html.

61 Sources cited in the source document include: Federal Highway Administration, “Transportation

Application of Recycled Concrete Aggregate,” 2004; David R. Wilburn and Thomas G. Goonan,

“Aggregates from Natural And Recycled Sources, Economic Assessments for Construction Applications–

A Materials Flow Analysis,” U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1176, 1998; Robert H. Falk and G. Bradley

Guy, “Directory of Wood-Framed Building Deconstruction and Reused Building Materials Companies,"

U.S. Forest Service, 2004; and Robert Falk, “Wood-Framed Building Deconstruction, A Source of

Lumber for Construction?" Forest Products Journal, Vol. 52, No. 3, 2002.

62 U.S. EPA, Characterization of Building-Related Construction and Demolition Debris Materials in the

United States (DRAFT), Municipal and Industrial Solid Waste Division, Office of Solid Waste. Draft in

progress.
February 2009 43

63 The 48% includes managing materials beyond recycling, including reuse and waste-to-energy. Kim

Cochran, U.S. EPA Office of Solid Waste, January 12, 2007, personal communication.

64 Statement within EPA press release: “EPA and Partners Kick Off Green Building Design Challenge;

Contest to reward reuse designs that save resources, costs,” May 13, 2008.

65 U.S. EPA. “Greenhouse Gas Emission Factors (MTCO2E per short ton)” Waste Reduction Model. August

2008. Web-based calculator and Excel worksheet available at:

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html.

66 Ibid.

67 Quantity of asphalt from personal communication of EPA estimates.

68 The City of San Diego, “Potential Benefits of C&D Recycling,”available at:

http://www.sandiego.gov/environmental-services/recycling/cdbenefits.shtml. See also: King County Solid

Waste Division , ”Cost-effectiveness of Jobsite Diversion/Recycling.,” October 2 2008

.http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/greenbuilding/construction-recycling/cost-effectiveness.asp; Recycling

Economics worksheet, available at:

http://www.metrokc.gov/dnrp/swd/greenbuilding/documents/economics_worksheet.xls.

69 Ibid.

70 Arpad Horvath, “Construction Materials and the Environment,” Annual Review of Environment and

Resources, 2004, p. 194.

71 New Hampshire, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Florida, Nebraska, Idaho, and

California.

72 Massachusetts EPA, MEPA Greenhouse Gas Emissions Policy and Protocol,

http://www.mass.gov/envir/mepa/pdffiles/misc/GHG%20Policy%20FINAL.pdf.

73 EPA’s ReCon tool provides basic comparisons of the emissions produced from virgin materials and the

same materials with a selected recycled content. U.S. EPA, “Recycled Content (ReCon)Tool,” August 25,

2008. Available at: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/ReCon_home.html.

74 U.S. EPA. “Waste Reduction Model,” Climate Change-Waste, September 1, 2008.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html

75 National Institute of Standards and Technology, BEES 4.0. August 20, 2007. Available at:

http://www.bfrl.nist.gov/oae/software/bees/

76 Comment verbatim from note regarding the WARM and ReCon models. U.S. EPA. “Waste Reduction

Model,” Climate Change-Waste, September 1, 2008.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/calculators/Warm_home.html

77 The pilot consolidation center for construction materials as part of the London Freight Plan purports to

reduce transportation emissions by 75 percent. London Construction Consolidation Centre interim report,

May 2007, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/assets/downloads/businessandpartners/LCCC-interim-report-may07.pdf; News Article, http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/3525.aspx.

78 U.S. EPA, Shipper/Logistics FLEET Performance Model, 2008,

http://www.epa.gov/smartway/smartway_shippers_software.htm#model.

79 Summary from interviews with Michael Dean, Turner Construction, Matthew Crandall, DPR

Construction, and Joel Nickel, Aggregate Industries.
February 2009 44

80 WRI/WBSCD, “Corporate Standard,” The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative,

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/standards/corporate-standard.

81 The Kyoto Protocol gases are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O);

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

82 WRI/WBSCD, “About the GHG Protocol,” The Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative,

http://www.ghgprotocol.org/about-ghgp.

83 WRI/WBSCD, A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard, Revised Edition, 2004. Page 25.

Available at: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/files/ghg-protocol-revised.pdf

84 U.S. EPA, “Inventory Guidance,” Climate Leaders, August 20, 2008.

http://www.epa.gov/stateply/resources/inventory-guidance.html.

85 Urbemis, a model developed to calculate emissions from land use, calculates construction equipmentspecific emissions based on the hours operated, average horsepower used, and average load factor during

operation. Rimpo and Associates, Inc., Urbemis 9.2.4, 2008. Available at: http://www.urbemis.com.

86 According to IPCC emissions factors, CH4 emissions from an uncontrolled gasoline engine are

approximately one-third higher in an uncontrolled gasoline offroad vehicle (33 kg/TJ versus 50 kg/TJ).

2006 IPCC National Guidelines for Greenhouse Gas Inventories, IPCC, 2006. Available at:

http://www.ipcc-nggip.iges.or.jp/public/2006gl/pdf/2_Volume2/V2_3_Ch3_Mobile_Combustion.pdf

87 North Bay Construction, another Climate Leader member, was not available for comment.

88 Michael Dean, Turner Construction, June 18, 2008, personal communication.

89 Mathew Crandall, DPR Construction, August 19, 2008, personal communication.

90 Adam Loney and Greg Carli, Conestoga Rovers and Associates, September 10, 2008, personal

communication.

91 Joel Nickel, Aggregate Industries, October 3, 2008, personal communication.

92 Idling calculation range from assumptions made in Section 2, reducing 10 hours idling per year for all

construction establishments listed by the U.S. Census Bureau, County Business Patterns (CBP), 2006.

Additional calculation assumes 2 million pieces diesel construction equipment idle 29.4% of 1,500

operational hours per year, of which 10% is reduced per year. See articles: U.S. EPA. “Engine and Vehicle

Emissions Reductions,” March 2007, available at: http://es.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2007/2007_sbir_phase1.html,

and Lim, Han. Study of Exhaust Emissions from Idling Heavy-Duty Diesel Trucks and Commercially

Available Idle-Reducing Devices, U.S. EPA, October 2002.

Maintenance and driver training assumes efficiency improvements in 2 million pieces of diesel off-road

construction equipment, assuming a heavy-heavy duty diesel vehicle with an average 6.6 miles per gallon

operating 1,500 miles per year. See Huai et al., “Analysis of heavy-duty diesel truck activity and emissions

data,” Atmospheric Environment 40: 2333-2344, 2006.

Electricity conservation assumes a reduction of 10% from total sector-wide purchased electricity

consumption. See Table 6.

Biodiesel replacement assumes 10% of any diesel fuel consumption (on- or off-highway) is replaced by

B20. See Table 5.

Emissions factor for steel is from EPA’s Waste Reduction Model—Results. Model estimate methodology

from: Solid Waste Management and Greenhouse Gases: A Life-Cycle Assessment of Emissions and Sinks

(EPA530-R-02-006); available at: http://www.epa.gov/mswclimate/greengas.pdf.
February 2009 45

Emissions factor for asphalt is from EPA’s Waste and Materials-Flow Benchmark Sector Report:

Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials - Construction & Demolition Debris, draft in progress.

Emissions factor for concrete is from Arpad Horvath, “Construction Materials and the Environment,”

Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 2004, p. 189.

Annual concrete recycled quantity is from CMRA, www.concreterecycling.org.

Steel recycling rates and quantity are from personal communication with Bill Heenan, President of the

Steel Recycling Institute, and “Fact sheet: 2006 rates,” http://www.recyclesteel.org/PDFs/2006Graphs.pdf. Of the 40 million tons recycled, approximately 28 million tons are

structural and 12 million tons are reinforcement steel.

Asphalt recycled quantity is provided from personal communication of EPA estimates.