NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, 

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the 

Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

An Interagency Pilot of 

Greenhouse Gas Accounting 

Tools: Lessons Learned

A. Carpenter, E. Hotchkiss, and A. Kandt

Produced under direction of U.S.D.A. – Forest Service by the National 

Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) under Interagency Agreement 

IAG-10-1783. 

Work for Others Report

NREL/TP-7A40-56602

February 2013 
NREL is a national laboratory of the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy 

Efficiency & Renewable Energy, operated by the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC.

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308

National Renewable Energy Laboratory

15013 Denver West Parkway

Golden, CO 80401

303-275-3000 • www.nrel.gov

An Interagency Pilot of 

Greenhouse Gas Accounting 

Tools: Lessons Learned 

A. Carpenter, E. Hotchkiss, and A. Kandt

Prepared under Task No. WFF7.1000

Work for Others Report

NREL/TP-7A40-56602

February 2013
NOTICE

This manuscript has been authored by employees of the Alliance for Sustainable Energy, LLC (“Alliance”) under 

Contract No. DE-AC36-08GO28308 with the U.S. Department of Energy (“DOE”).

The tables and figures in this report are limited to use in this report only and are not to be further disseminated or 

used without the permission of the sources cited.** 

This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States government. 

Neither the United States government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, makes any warranty, 

express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of 

any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately 

owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, 

trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, 

or favoring by the United States government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed 

herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States government or any agency thereof.

Cover Photos: (left to right) PIX 16416, PIX 17423, PIX 16560, PIX 17613, PIX 17436, PIX 17721

Printed on paper containing at least 50% wastepaper, including 10% post consumer waste. 
i 

Contacts

Authors

Alberta Carpenter

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

15013 Denver West Parkway 

Golden, CO 80401-3305 

303-275-4232 

Alberta.Carpenter@nrel.gov 

Eliza Hotchkiss 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

15013 Denver West Parkway 

Golden, CO 80401-3305 

303-384-7309 

Eliza.Hotchkiss@nrel.gov 

Alicen Kandt 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

15013 Denver West Parkway 

Golden, CO 80401-3305 

303-384-7518 

Alicen.Kandt@nrel.gov 

Clients 

Anna Jones-Crabtree 

U.S. Forest Service 

2880 Skyway Drive 

Helena, MT 59601 

406-495-3744 

ajonescrabtree@fs.fed.us 

Michele Parker

Tongass National Forest

P.O. Box 309 

Petersburg, AK 99833

907-518-1079 

mmparker@fs.fed.us 
ii

Acknowledgments 

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) thanks the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) for 

its continued interest in securing NREL’s assessment expertise. In particular, NREL is grateful to 

Anna Jones-Crabtree, Mike Fiebig, and Michele Parker for their generous assistance and 

cooperation. 

Technical assistance conducted and outlined in this report was funded by the USFS, unless 

otherwise noted. However, many agency staff volunteered their time to participate in the pilot 

project. The results of this study would not have been possible without the enthusiasm and 

dedication of the following participants: Karin Lovgren (Shoshone National Forest); Margaret 

Wilson (Grand Teton National Park); Tim Dedrick (Rogue River – Siskiyou National Forest) and 

Michele Parker and Frank Barnes (Tongass National Forest). Other USFS employees who 

contributed to conversations are Meghan Oswalt, Stephanie Pickern, Lara Polansky, and Katie 

Newcomb. 

The authors would also like to thank their colleagues who contributed to the writing of the 

document: Jessica Katz and Jason Acosta.
iii

Abbreviations and Acronyms

CACP Clean Air Climate Protection

CCAP Center for Clean Air Policy

CEQ White House Council on Environmental Quality 

CH4 methane 

CLIP Client Leadership in Parks

CO2 carbon dioxide 

CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent 

CRIS Climate Registry Information System

CSV comma-separated values

E.O. executive order 

EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

FEMP Federal Energy Management Program 

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 

FY fiscal year

GHG greenhouse gases

GREET Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and 

Energy Use in Transportation 

GSA General Services Administration

GWP global warming potential 

GYA Greater Yellowstone Area

GYCC Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee

HFCs hydrofluorocarbons 

ICLEI International Council for Local Environmental 

Initiatives

LEAP Long-Range Alternatives Planning System 

MTCO2e metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent 

N2O nitrous oxide

NPS National Park Service

NREL National Renewable Energy Laboratory 

OMB Office of Management and Budget 

PFCs perfluorocarbons 

ROI return on investment

SF6 sulfur hexafluoride 

USFS U.S. Forest Service 

WARM Waste Reduction Model

WRI World Resources Institute
iv

Executive Summary

The Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) and Tongass National Forest (Tongass) partnered with the 

National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) to conduct a pilot study of three greenhouse gas 

(GHG) inventorying tools. The pilot partners identified a need for this study for a number of 

reasons. Past experiences with GHG inventorying indicated a need for one tool to be used across 

land management agencies in order to consistently report GHG emissions. The U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency’s Climate Leaders tool and the National Park Service’s 

Climate Leadership in Parks tool had both been used previously by the GYA, which presented 

challenges in terms of consistently collecting data and reporting information relating to GHG 

activities. Also, annual data collection is burdensome, and reporting is resource intensive. In 

order to streamline the process and ease the burden, an effective tool was sought for multiagency 

GHG accounting. 

The GYA is one of the largest, intact ecosystems in the continental United States. Land 

managers within the GYA have recognized the importance of compiling and understanding 

agency GHG emissions. The 10 federal units within the GYA have taken an active role in 

compiling GHG inventories on a unit- and ecosystem-wide level, setting goals for GHG 

mitigation, and identifying mitigation strategies for achieving those goals. Building on efforts 

from previous years, and extending the boundaries of collaboration to include Tongass in Alaska, 

the GYA undertook a pilot study of various GHG inventorying and action planning tools 

available to the federal sector. 

Within the United States, there are vast areas of public land, with multiple natural resources, 

under federal management. Management occurs across the jurisdiction of many agencies 

performing work under agency-specific mandates and objectives. Yet, there are few other case 

studies on record that have taken such a quantitative and collaborative approach to 

environmental emissions management across so many federal agencies, or across such a large 

land base. This case study of the participating units within the GYA and Tongass represents a 

unique opportunity to examine a broad, complex, social-ecological system that shares 

characteristics, advantages, and limitations with many other land-based cross-agency efforts. 

This knowledge and experience can be expected to become increasingly sought and valuable as 

federal agencies seek unifying principles, criteria, and approaches for responding to and 

moderating the intensifying environmental management pressures on national lands. The 

challenge of collecting accurate GHG accounting data, establishing goals, and monitoring 

progress towards GHG reductions is one where agencies of all types could use assistance. 

Additionally, land management agencies are not alone in their desire to manage data to reduce 

GHG emissions. The goals established for all federal agencies in Executive Order 13514 result in 

large datasets that are aggregated on a national scale, making management of GHG emissions at 

a regional or local level challenging due to lack of granularity of data or resources required to 

collect and manage the data. The aim of the pilot study is to identify tools and resources that 

alleviate the burden of the process, and streamline it for land management agencies, as well as 

provide granular data to allow units the opportunity to collect and manage data for reporting and 

decision making to reduce GHG emissions. 
v 

Staff determined that an ideal tool would feature:

• Comprehensive and readily available technical support, available in a variety of formats

• A familiar, transparent, and reliable operating platform 

• Both inventorying and action planning modules useable at a unit, regional, or agencywide level 

• A variety of standardized reporting formats and flexibility for creating non-standard 

reporting 

• An intuitive, user-friendly design with simple navigation 

• A tracking system, with the ability to make notes, for capturing where data came from, 

the data’s relevant time period, and additional data points as well as points of contact and 

calculation assumptions 

• An error-checking system for identifying and highlighting erroneous or missing data 

points 

• Data entry options including manual data input and template/batch uploads 

• Compatibility with other tools and reporting requirements and mechanisms

• Access control and accountability to enable differing levels of access 

• Low or no costs associated with tool use 

• Direct data population into the U.S. Department of Energy Federal Energy Management 

Program GHG and Sustainability Reporting Workbook. 

In working to identify tools that best meet the above-outlined needs, the pilot teams tested three 

different tools. While the pilot project’s goal was to identify one tool that could address the 

needs of the land management agencies involved in the project to inventory and prioritize actions 

to reduce GHG emissions, no single tool provided all of the functionality that the agencies 

required. During the project, the team identified that lack of granular data, lack of resources, and 

the burden of reporting are all challenges. In order to address these challenges, a federally 

sponsored GHG reporting and action planning tool could be created. This would require 

collective cooperation and resourcing, but could be the answer that many federal agencies are 

looking for in terms of a single tool to meet their needs. 
vi 

Table of Contents

Contacts........................................................................................................................................................ i

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................................................... ii

Abbreviations and Acronyms ................................................................................................................... iii

Executive Summary................................................................................................................................... iv

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... vii

List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................. vii

1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 1

2 Greenhouse Gas Basics ...................................................................................................................... 3

2.1 Federal Greenhouse Gas Context..................................................................................................... 3

3 Pilot Study............................................................................................................................................. 6

3.1 Pilot Structure .................................................................................................................................. 6

3.2 Pre-Pilot Phase................................................................................................................................. 6

Team Creation.................................................................................................................................. 7

Pilot Project Organization................................................................................................................ 9

Tool Criteria and Selection ............................................................................................................ 10

Criteria for Measuring Success...................................................................................................... 14

3.3 Pilot Phase...................................................................................................................................... 15

Pilot Launch................................................................................................................................... 15

Inventory Modules......................................................................................................................... 16

Action Planning Module ................................................................................................................ 24

3.4 Post-Pilot Phase ............................................................................................................................. 29

4 Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 35

Appendix A – Inventory Module Evaluation Results and Comments.................................................. 37

Synopsis of Inventory Evaluation Comments...................................................................................... 39

Time Requirement ......................................................................................................................... 39

What Was Not Liked ..................................................................................................................... 39

What Needed Improvement ........................................................................................................... 40

What Worked Well ........................................................................................................................ 40

Additional Comments/Feedback.................................................................................................... 40

Appendix B – Action Planning Module Evaluation Results and Comments ...................................... 42

Appendix C – Data Collection Forms...................................................................................................... 45
vii 

List of Figures

Figure 1. Definitions of federal GHG inventorying scopes..................................................................... 4

Figure 2. Gantt chart showing activities within each phase................................................................... 7

Figure 3. CLIP tool inventory control sheet. .......................................................................................... 16

Figure 4. CLIP tool inventory—data entry page for stationary combustion....................................... 17

Figure 5. Screenshot of the GSA Carbon Footprint Tool inventory module. ..................................... 19

Figure 6. Screenshot of GSA Carbon Footprint Tool enterprise profile. ............................................ 20

Figure 7. Screenshot of the ghgTrack dashboard. ................................................................................ 22

Figure 8. The ghgTrack data upload template. ...................................................................................... 23

Figure 9. CLIP action planning module for energy management goal setting................................... 25

Figure 10. CLIP action planning module for energy management – assessment of specific 

mitigation action items. ..................................................................................................................... 26

Figure 11. GSA Carbon Footprint Tool dashboard................................................................................ 28

Figure 12. GSA Carbon Footprint Tool benchmarking feature. ........................................................... 29

List of Tables

Table 1. GYA Agencies and Units ............................................................................................................. 8

Table 2. Examples of Where to Find GHG Data ..................................................................................... 10

Table 3. Compilation of the GHG Tools Initially Considered for Use in the Pilot Project ................. 11

Table 4. Summary of Tool Strengths and Weaknesses ........................................................................ 33

Table A-1. Inventory Module Evaluation Results................................................................................... 38

Table B-1. Action Planning Module Evaluation Results ....................................................................... 42

Table B-2. Action Planning Evaluation Comments ............................................................................... 43

Table C-1. Automated Data Collection Spreadsheet............................................................................. 46
1 

1 Introduction

The Greater Yellowstone Area (GYA) is one of the largest intact ecosystems in the contiguous 

United States. This region encompasses 18 million acres across three states and contains six 

national forests, two national parks, and two fish and wildlife refuges. The GYA is one of the 

most highly visited natural regions in the United States, with more than 4 million visitors each 

year.

The multiple land-management agencies that operate within the GYA have a long history of 

working together to reduce the environmental impact of their operations. In 1964, the U.S. 

National Park Service (NPS) and the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) formed the Greater 

Yellowstone Coordinating Committee (GYCC), joined in 1999 by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS). The goal of the GYCC is to allow representatives from the three agencies to 

pursue opportunities of mutual cooperation and coordination in the management of core federal

lands in the GYA.1

In 2007, the USFS was the first federal land management agency to join the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA) Climate Leaders program. As part of this affiliation, USFS agreed to 

develop a greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions inventory for seven pilot projects, including 

inventories for the six national forests in the GYA. USFS staff also applied the EPA Climate 

Leaders protocol to the two FWS refuges. These inventories conducted by USFS staff only 

represented agency operations; they did not incorporate emissions associated with visitors. NPS 

compiled its own agency inventories, and in 2008 and 2009, the National Renewable Energy 

Laboratory (NREL) consolidated the three agency inventories into one GYA-wide inventory for 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2007. The consolidated GYA GHG inventory captures emissions associated 

with anthropogenic activities on all federal lands in the GYA. The GYCC website is available to 

the public to show progress on inventories and reducing GHG emissions for units within the 

GYA, as well as the Tongass National Forest (Tongass).2

 

In 2010, the GYA again worked with NREL to create a collaborative process to determine 

actions to reduce GHG emissions associated with the agency activities. The three federal

agencies used the inventory and action planning process to collaboratively set comprehensive 

emission reduction goals for the 18-million-acre ecosystem. For the purposes of this pilot 

project, an action plan consists of identifying areas where GHG emissions could be reduced and 

identifying actions that could potentially reduce said emissions. The “action plan” is a tool or a 

document that summarizes a collective set of actions to reduce emissions in different categories. 

This project is one of many actions the agencies are taking to understand and reduce their 

environmental footprint and to satisfy the requirements of Executive Order (E.O.) 13423, E.O. 

13514, and the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007 (often referred to as EISA) to 

lower petroleum, energy, and water consumption, and to reduce GHG emissions.

 

1 “Greater Yellowstone Coordinating Committee.” NPS, USFS, FWS, and Bureau of Land Management (undated). 

Accessed Oct. 19, 2012: http://fedgycc.org/. 

2 “Sustainable Operations: Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventories.” USFS, 2011. Accessed Oct. 19, 2012: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/sustainableoperations/climate-change-greenhouse-gas-inventories.shtml. 
2 

The GYA and NREL continued the collaborative process in 2011. A pilot program was designed 

to determine whether a GHG inventorying and action planning tool exists that will help land 

management agencies with collecting data, reporting, and determining actions to reduce 

emissions. The pilot partners identified a need for a pilot study for a number of reasons. Past 

experiences with GHG inventorying indicated a need for one tool to be used across land 

management agencies in order to consistently report GHG emissions. Annual data collection is 

burdensome, and reporting is resource intensive. In order to streamline the process and ease the 

burden, an effective tool was sought for multiagency GHG accounting. In 2011, the GYA efforts 

were expanded to include Tongass National Forest (Tongass). The Tongass is located in Alaska 

and encompasses nearly 17 million acres surrounding the Inside Passage. The Tongass is the 

nation’s largest national forest and is unique in its remoteness, as well as its terrain, which 

includes glaciers, fjords, coastlines, forests, and protected heritage sites. The Tongass is not only 

the largest national forest, but its geographical location means remote facilities and camps exist; 

and motor vehicles, aircraft, and watercraft are used to access those sites. The Tongass was one 

of the first national forests to conduct a GHG emissions inventory and action plan in 2008, prior 

to the requirements established in E.O. 13514. Due to the size, unique challenges, and GHG 

inventorying experience, the Tongass was invited to participate in a pilot project to provide a 

different perspective within the USFS. More information about the Tongass sustainability 

inventories and efforts can be found in its environmental footprint report.

3

This “lessons learned” report outlines the pilot project designed and undertaken by NREL, the 

GYA, and the Tongass in 2011 and 2012. It details the processes, methodologies, challenges, and 

solutions realized by the federal units within the GYA and Tongass throughout this ongoing 

effort. 

 

3 USFS. First Tongass National Forest Environmental Footprint Report. (undated). Accessed Oct. 19, 2012: 

http://www.fs.fed.us/sustainableoperations/documents/tongass-footprint.pdf. 
3 

2 Greenhouse Gas Basics

Greenhouse Gases are trace gases that exist in the Earth’s lower atmosphere that trap heat 

through a natural process known as the "greenhouse effect." The greenhouse effect allows 

sunlight to freely enter the atmosphere and strike the Earth’s surface. Some of the energy is 

radiated back toward space as infrared radiation, or heat. GHGs in the atmosphere then capture 

some of this radiation, warming the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere. GHGs are emitted 

through a variety of both natural and human processes. The six commonly accepted and 

monitored GHGs are: carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), 

hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).

Although all GHGs can trap heat in the Earth’s atmosphere, different gases have varying heattrapping abilities and atmospheric lifetimes. For comparison, a global warming potential (GWP) 

value is assigned to each gas. GWP represents the heat-trapping impact of a gas relative to CO2, 

which has a GWP of 1 and functions as a warming “index.” GWP is generally calculated over a 

certain time interval (often 100 years). For example, N2O has a 100-year GWP of 310, meaning 

that 1 ton of N2O will trap 310 times more heat than 1 ton of CO2 over 100 years. 

A single metric capable of describing all GHG emissions is metric tons of CO2 equivalent 

(MTCO2e). To calculate MTCO2e, the mass of emissions from each gas emitted is multiplied by 

the GWP for that gas. For instance, methane has a GWP of 21, meaning that 1 ton of CH4 is 21 

times more potent than 1 ton of CO2. One ton of CH4 emissions is therefore equal to 21 

MTCO2e. 

2.1 Federal Greenhouse Gas Context 

In response to the growing scientific concern over the increase in GHGs in the atmosphere and 

their negative impact on natural environmental interactions, reporting and mitigation activities 

have begun on an international scale. Within the United States, two presidential E.O.s—E.O. 

13423 and E.O. 13514—were created to begin focusing on GHG emissions within the federal 

sector. E.O. 13423—“Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation 

Management”—was signed on January 24, 2007. It set more challenging goals than the Energy 

Policy Act of 2005 (often referred to as EPAct 2005) and superseded E.O. 13123 and E.O. 

13149. 

Under E.O. 13514, agencies must “...establish and report to the White House Council on 

Environmental Quality (CEQ) Chair and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director a 

comprehensive inventory of absolute GHG emissions, including Scope 1, Scope 2, and specified 

Scope 3 emissions.” 4 Absolute emissions refer to “...total GHG emissions without 

normalization for activity levels and includes any allowable consideration of sequestration.” 

Definitions of each emissions scope are shown in Figure 1. 

 

4 U.S. President. E.O. 13514, “Federal Leadership in Environmental, Energy, and Economic Performance.” Section 

2(c). Federal Register 74, no. 194 (8 October 2009). Accessed Oct. 19, 2012: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR2009-10-08/pdf/E9-24518.pdf. 
4 

Scope 1

Direct GHG emissions 

from sources that are 

owned or controlled by 

the federal agency

 

Scope 2

GHG emissions 

resulting from the 

generation of 

electricity, heat, or 

steam purchased by a 

federal agency

Scope 3

GHG emissions from 

sources not owned or 

controlled by a federal 

agency but related to 

agency activities such 

as vendor supply 

chains, delivery 

services, and employee 

travel and commuting

Figure 1. Definitions of federal GHG inventorying scopes

Examples of emissions sources within each scope are: 

• Scope 1 – stationary combustion, fleets, vehicles, and equipment, fugitive refrigerants 

and fluorinated-gases, agency-operated wastewater treatment facilities, agency-operated 

landfills, and process emissions

• Scope 2 – purchased electricity, purchased steam and hot water, purchased chilled water, 

and purchased steam or hot water from combined heat and power facilities

• Scope 3 – transmission and distribution losses associated with purchased electricity, 

employee business travel (air and ground), employee commuter travel, contracted 

wastewater treatment, and contracted waste disposal. 

Creating a GHG inventory is the first step in developing a plan to reduce GHG emissions. A 

GHG inventory is a comprehensive and quantified accounting of an agency’s GHG emissions 

and sources. A reliable GHG inventory embodies five core principles of GHG accounting and 

reporting: relevance, completeness, consistency, transparency, and accuracy.5

The instructions for preparing federal GHG inventories are detailed in the Federal Greenhouse 

Gas Accounting and Reporting Guidance and its associated Technical Support Document (TSD),

which were released by the CEQ.6

 Per E.O. 13514, agencies were first required to submit 

inventories in January 2011 for their baseline year (FY 2008) and for their first year of reporting 

(FY 2010). E.O. 13514 also requires that federal emissions inventories are reported annually 

each January for the preceding FY. As such, agencies have been challenged with learning about 

GHG emissions, their sources, and how to collect and aggregate the data. The additional 

reporting requirement has placed an added burden on agencies for collecting and reporting data 

without additional resources to support such an effort. 

 

5 The GHG accounting and reporting principles were first established in the GHG Protocol Corporate Accounting 

and Reporting Standard, which was developed by the World Resources Institute and the World Business Council for 

Sustainable Development through the Greenhouse Gas Protocol Initiative. The Corporate Standard, along with a

variety of other GHG protocols, was accessed August 2012: http://www.ghgprotocol.org/. 

6 “CEQ: Guidance for Federal Greenhouse Gas Accounting and Inventories.” The White House (undated). Accessed 

Oct. 19, 2012: http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/sustainability/fed-ghg. 
5 

On a broader federal level, there are two methods to report GHG emissions. Agencies have the 

option of reporting in a top-down or a bottom-up approach. Top-down reporting is where data 

are aggregated and analyzed, calculated, and entered at a headquarters level. Bottom-up 

reporting is done at a facilities level from acquisition, calculations, and entry. Agencies must 

report through the U.S. Department of Energy’s Federal Energy Management Program (FEMP) 

Annual GHG and Sustainability Data Report. This FEMP report is a federal GHG reporting 

workbook serving as a foundation for annual energy and GHG emissions reporting under E.O. 

13514. The Excel-based workbook is available from FEMP for annual submission by each 

agency. 

The FEMP GHG report is submitted to both FEMP and CEQ, and used by the OMB for 

scorecard reporting. Scorecards are reports that allow comparisons between agencies; and allow 

agencies to track performance internally year-on-year in the areas of energy, water, pollution, 

and waste. More information on OMB Scorecards and the agencies involved in annual reporting 

can be found on the White House’s website.7

 

Within the context of the GYA and Tongass pilot project, the federal GHG inventorying 

requirements are important to consider because there are a number of global methodologies for 

GHG reporting. For the sake of consistency and to ease the burden for reporting requirements, 

the team identified the need to use tools that have the capability to report GHG emissions in a 

format consistent with federal requirements under E.O. 13514. GYA and Tongass staff identified 

the need to determine ways in which the reporting burden could be lessened and to provide 

consistency across land management agencies. The process outlined in Section 3 of this report 

provides more context pertaining to GHG reporting and mitigation, specifically for land 

management agencies. 

 

7 “CEQ: OMB Sustainability and Energy Scorecards.” The White House (undated). Accessed Oct. 19, 2012: 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/administration/eop/ceq/sustainability/omb-scorecards. 
6 

3 Pilot Study

The GYA and Tongass worked with NREL to conduct a pilot study of three GHG inventorying 

tools. The pilot partners identified a need for a pilot study for a number of reasons. Past 

experiences with GHG inventorying indicated a need for one tool to be used across land 

management agencies in order to consistently report GHG emissions. The EPA’s Climate 

Leaders tool and the NPS’s Climate Leadership in Parks (CLIP) tool had both been used 

previously by the GYA, which presented challenges in terms of consistently collecting data and 

reporting information relating to GHG activities. Annual data collection is burdensome, and 

reporting is resource intensive. In order to streamline the process and ease the burden, this pilot 

aimed to identify an effective tool for multiagency GHG accounting. 

3.1 Pilot Structure 

A number of factors influenced the design of this GHG tool pilot project with the land 

management agencies. Resourcing, timing, and predictable needs were the major factors that 

influenced the project. The pilot was also structured around the constraints of the participating 

land management agencies because this was a volunteer-based pilot for those participating 

agencies. 

NREL worked with the pilot participants to identify key activities for a successful pilot program. 

The activities were broken out by pre-pilot, pilot and post-pilot categories: 

• Pre-Pilot. Pre-pilot activities included identifying criteria for tools, identifying tools that 

met the criteria, narrowing the tools down, selecting tools for the pilot and designing a 

pilot program, identifying a launch date and team members, establishing the measures of 

success and outlining expectations, creating data collection sheets to populate the tools, 

and identifying methods for collecting data. Feedback forms were also created to analyze 

the tools after the inventory and action planning modules had been used. 

• Pilot. The pilot activities included training and launching each of the three tools while 

allowing enough time for the team members to become familiar with each tool and 

populate each tool with data for GHG inventories. The action planning modules were also 

included in the pilot activities. Evaluating the tools and discussing what worked well or 

what could be improved upon occurred during the pilot and post-pilot phases. 

• Post-Pilot. The lessons learned from the experiences were documented during the postpilot phase and reviewed by the team in order to share the experiences with a larger 

audience to further adoption or development of tools. 

3.2 Pre-Pilot Phase 

The Gantt chart in Figure 2 shows a very linear progression of scheduled activities; however, this 

is not necessarily reflective of the actual pilot project. While activities were outlined to take 

place sequentially, the reality is that activities often happened concurrently. Tool criteria were 

developed while a team was being created to pilot different tools. Tools were being reviewed and 

assessed for possible inclusion in the pilot study while the pilot program was being designed. 
7 

Activities occurred in tandem and provided a more informative process than if the team had 

stuck to a stringent timeline. 

Figure 2. Gantt chart showing activities within each phase 

The following section details the activities in the pre-pilot phase. 

Team Creation

The pilot team was comprised of four different land management units: one NPS unit (Grand 

Teton National Park) and three USFS units (Shoshone National Forest, Rogue-River Siskiyou 

National Forest, and the Tongass’ Ketchikan Ranger District). 

The GYA includes various units from NPS, USFS, and FWS. Those units are shown in Table 1. 

In an effort to collaborate with other entities outside of the GYA, the Tongass was asked to 

participate due to the size of the forest and its experience with GHG inventories and action 

planning, as previously mentioned. 
8 

Table 1. GYA Agencies and Units

Agency Unit

USFS Shoshone National Forest

Gallatin National Forest

Custer National Forest

Bridger-Teton National Forest

Caribou-Targhee National Forest

Beaverhead-Deerlodge National 

Forest

NPS Grand Teton National Park

Yellowstone National Park

FWS Red Rock Lakes Wildlife Refuge

National Elk Refuge

The GHG pilot project was structured to allow the input of land management agencies that had 

the time and staff to dedicate resources to the project. The pilot was scheduled over the winter 

months to alleviate impacting field season and mission critical activities. The pilot project 

participants strongly influenced the structure of the project through available resources, timing 

and needs. Therefore, some background information on each of the participating units may prove 

useful. The GYA had previously worked with NREL to compile GHG inventories and conduct 

workshops to identify measures to include in an interagency action plan.8

 NREL also produced a 

report on the workshop results and the formation of the action planning process.9

While land management agencies are faced with similar challenges in terms of data collection 

and GHG emissions mitigation, there are different challenges for different agencies. In general, 

land management agencies are faced with minimal staff and resources to collect data. These 

agencies also struggle with how to appropriately quantify and incorporate GHG emissions 

associated with seasonal staff and associated housing, remote facilities and management areas, 

and visitor and concessionaire activities. 

Land management agencies are unique in that they have a “field season,” which requires 

additional staff to support their missions. Because staff may be contracted or part-time, their 

patterns of behavior and routines may be different from full-time staff. One example is that 

seasonal staff may live in remote cabins or at campsites for management and operation of 

seasonal visitation and facilities or for research. These remote locations may be difficult to reach 

by vehicle, so staff may drive, ride, or fly in once a week and stay the entire week, as opposed to 

commuting on a daily basis. These accommodations may be fueled by propane with tanks being 

filled once per season. Quantifying the amount of resources used to staff these locations for three 

months every year is a challenge due to billing processes. Records of fuel consumption may also 

be kept by the site, but not necessarily communicated to those responsible for sustainability and 

GHG reporting. Therefore, while the overall impact of the GHG emissions associated with these 

 

8 Fiebig, M. Sustainability Across Boundaries: The Greater Yellowstone Area Climate Action Plan. GYCC, 2011. 

Accessed Oct. 31, 2012: http://fedgycc.org/documents/GYAClimateActionPlanFinal.pdf. 

 

9 Kandt, A.; Hotchkiss, E. Beyond the Inventory: An Interagency Collaboration to Reduce Greenhouse Gas 

Emissions in the Greater Yellowstone Area. NREL/TP-7A20-49291. Golden, CO: NREL, 2010. Accessed Oct. 31, 

2012: http://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy11osti/49291.pdf. 
9 

remote, seasonal activities may seem of little importance, they do present a challenge of 

accurately tracking data and identifying potential areas for reduction. 

The FWS faced challenges related to dedicating staff to collect data. The FWS within the GYA 

manages the Red Rock Lakes Wildlife and the National Elk refuges. These are the smallest 

agency units within the GYA; however, they do have an impact on the GYA’s GHG emissions 

as a whole, in particular through irrigation and harvesting of winter feed for elk. While the 

wildlife population is large, there are only seven staff members to oversee the operations of the 

refuge. Dedicating staff to a pilot project was not possible for the efforts of this project;

therefore, the FWS opted not to participate in the pilot during 2011-2012. In an effort to expand 

the pilot area and determine if there were differences between different forest units on a regional 

scale, the team approached other regional operations staff to solicit involvement. 

Pilot Project Organization

The pilot was designed to be conducted outside of field season so as not to overburden the 

agencies during their busiest time of year. Many land management agencies have busy summer 

seasons—from May through September—when many ground-based management, use, and 

activities occur in support of agency missions. As such, the pilot was designed to take advantage 

of the quieter winter season when USFS and NPS staff had more time to focus on collecting and 

reporting data, as well as providing feedback to the pilot team. 

Coordination occurred every other week to determine progress and whether there were any 

questions or concerns relating to tools, or GHG inventorying or action planning in general. Calls 

were organized to allow pilot participants to share problems and brainstorm solutions. The 

outcome was that many participants had similar problems, mostly with data collection and where 

to find data. Those participants who had been able to find the necessary data were able to provide 

solutions to the other participants. 

Data collection sheets were created to allow the tools to be populated with consistent data and to 

allow for ease of data collection. NREL designed the sheets to allow participants to enter 

granular data that were required by each tool for alleviating the number of times data needed to 

be collected. Rather than starting to populate a tool and then having to pause to go find additional 

data, the user could gather all necessary data from the onset, and then go to the tool for data entry 

of all available data. The data collection sheets were used as reference points for data entry for 

each individual GHG tool. The sheets were created in Excel workbooks, and comments were 

added to explain what kind of data were required and where the data could be potentially located. 

Examples of where data can be found are shown in Table 2. Descriptions for units and 

conversions between units were also provided. Appendix C features examples of the data 

collection sheets used. 
10 

Table 2. Examples of Where to Find GHG Data 

Tool Criteria and Selection

In general, agencies had a need to reduce the burden and streamline the process for collecting 

data from numerous sources for multiple reporting purposes. Manual, time-consuming data 

collection processes are common for agencies; and the annual requirement for resource reporting 

places an additional burden and high level of focus on agencies to collect data, transcribe them 

from their sources, and translate the data into reporting requirements. 

Multiple GHG inventorying tools exist in the public domain. Nineteen different tools were 

reviewed to determine their capabilities, level of access, and cost to use. All tools analyzed in the 

pilot are available for download or use via the internet. The tools included in the review are 

summarized in Table 3. 

Category Data Source

Building energy and water 

consumption (BTU, kWh, gallons, 

etc.)

Energy bills from utilities

Financing officer

Facility or energy managers

Employee commuting Surveys

HR staff

Business travel GSA Travel Trax

HR Staff 

Surveys

Financing officer (reimbursement)

Fugitive emissions Equipment inventories

Environmental management systems

Environmental audit reports
11 

Table 3. Compilation of the GHG Tools Initially Considered for Use in the Pilot Project 

Tools Reviewed for the GYA and Tongass

Tool Name Cost Description Applicability

The Center for Clean Air Policy (CCAP) Transportation 

Emissions Free Transportation specific Scope 1 and 3 for employee commuting, business travel and fleet only

Cintellate Paid Available online, may not align with federal reporting requirements All scopes 

Climate Leadership in Parks (CLIP) Tool Free Available for download, NPS specific, but aligns with federal

reporting All scopes, in development for version 2

Climate Registry Information System (CRIS) Paid

Limited in that it assists with creating a baseline, but not necessarily 

other implementation phases, 

may not align with federal reporting requirements

All scopes 

Credit 360 Paid Online tool, potentially able to modify to align with federal sector 

reporting All scopes 

EPA Climate Leaders Free Available for download, federal tool All scopes, program is being phased out, 

but the tool will be kept

Footprinter Paid Available online, a UK tool that can be modified to align with federal

reporting requirements All scopes 

GHG Protocol Initiative Free Online, federal tool All scopes 

The Greenhouse Gases, Regulated Emissions, and Energy Use in 

Transportation (GREET) Calculator Free Transportation specific Scope 1 and 3 for employee commuting, business travel, and fleet only

GSA (General Services Administration) Carbon Footprint and 

Green Procurement Tool Free Online tool, may be limited in applicability across all data collection areas, federal tool

Developing to include all scopes; is not 

currently comprehensive

ghgTrack Paid Available online, can be modified to align with federal reporting 

requirements All scopes 

ICLEI CACP, (ICLEI-Local Governments for Sustainability 

Clean Air Climate Protection Software) Free Available online, communities-based tool, may not align with federalreporting requirements Community level tool – all scopes

IHS-ESS Paid Available online, may not align with federal reporting requirements All scopes 

IHS GHG and Energy Management Solution Paid Custom tools that can be designed to align with federal reporting 

requirements All scopes 

LEAP (Long-Range Energy Alternatives Planning System)

Paid, Free 

for 

government 

agencies

Online tool that helps with projections All scopes 

Portfolio Manager (EPA Energy Star) Free Online tool, site-level/buildings specific Scope 1 and 2 for buildings only

WAste Reduction Model (WARM) Free Online tool, waste specific Scope 1 and 3 only

World Resources Institute (WRI) Tools Free Online tools, each tool for data collection is separated out (e.g., one 

specific tool for waste, one specific tool for water, etc.)

Tools are individual and would have to be 

packaged for all scopes
12 

Many of the tools available at the time of the initial review did not use GHG emissions factors or 

accounting methodologies applicable to federal agencies, and were therefore eliminated from 

consideration for the pilot. The agencies within the GYA and Tongass are geographically 

separated, and required remote access to software or data collection tools. The pilot team’s needs 

dictated the use of online tools, which allowed for batch uploads, Internet accessibility, report 

generation outputs, etc. As such, initial criteria were established to prioritize tools for 

consideration: 

• Tools must be aligned with federal reporting requirements in a bottom-up approach. 

• Tools must be accessible for download or use on the Internet. 

The tools were narrowed to those that best met the initial criteria: 1) ghgTrack, 2) Footprinter, 3) 

General Services Administration (GSA) Carbon Footprint Tool, 4) Long-Range Energy 

Alternatives Planning System (LEAP), 5) National Park Service’s (NPS) Climate Leadership in 

Parks (CLIP) tool, and 6) IHS tools. The four tools that are private (ghgTrack, Footprinter, 

LEAP, and IHS) have the option of assigning federal emissions factors. The other tools are 

publicly available as they are provided by federal agencies, using federal emissions factors; 

although, at the time of the pilot, they were being updated to incorporate federal methodologies 

and updates. 

NREL conducted an analysis of data requirements based on the climate action plans created by 

the GYA and Tongass. The analysis included: 1) determining what data are required to measure 

progress in achieving targets established in the action plans, 2) where data are being collected 

within each agency currently, and 3) a gap analysis of where data are necessary, but not currently 

being collected. The information gleaned from the analysis was used to select three tools for 

piloting and to design a pilot project to determine which tools best meet the pilot team’s needs as 

a whole. After the tools were narrowed down, NREL conducted an analysis of the data 

requirements for the GYA and Tongass to determine whether the tools addressed the data 

collection requirements and whether the tools needed to be tailored to assist with the project’s

objectives. 

The tools selected for the GHG accounting and action planning pilot project with the GYA and 

Tongass were chosen for specific reasons, and each tool is described in detail in the following 

sections. In no way was this pilot project intended to condone or endorse the use of one specific 

tool. The project was designed to identify which parameters work well within a tool, where there 

are gaps in usability or functionality; and what the ideal tool would be for a federal land 

management agency undertaking a GHG inventory and action planning exercise. The tools that 

were identified for this pilot may or may not be successful tools for other agencies undertaking 

similar activities. The tools were further scaled down to the CLIP tool, the GSA Carbon 

Footprint tool, and the ghgTrack tool. The CLIP tool was selected because it did provide 

functionality that was very specific to the NPS and met its needs. The GSA Carbon Footprint 

tool was selected because it is a publicly available tool and was designed to accommodate FEMP 

reporting for federal agencies. The ghgTrack tool was selected as a private alternative that had 

management support that is not restricted by federal funding and proposed a flexibility that could

meet the varying needs of different agencies.
13 

CLIP Tool 

The CLIP tool is an Excel-based workbook that has been designed through a partnership between 

the EPA and NPS. The CLIP tool was developed by ICF International under contract with NPS. 

The tool is free of charge and available for download from the NPS website.

10 

The CLIP tool has two different modules: the inventory tool and the action planning tool. The 

inventory module allows agencies to prepare a baseline emission inventory specifically for 

national parks and to include concessionaires and contractors within park boundaries. The 

emissions sources included cover agency activities related to stationary combustion, purchased 

electricity, mobile combustion, landfilled waste, wastewater treatment, fertilizer application, 

forest management, and oil and natural gas activities. The inventory portion of the CLIP tool is 

designed only for data input, but does provide tabular results with total emissions by sector and 

park unit (i.e., park operations, visitors, concessionaires, and other permitted activities) for total 

CO2e, by individual GHG, by scope, and from biofuel consumption. It provides graphs for total 

CO2e emissions by scope, park unit, and sector. The action planning module imports the data 

from the inventory module and allows the user to assess different mitigation actions. The action 

planning module allows agencies to set emission reduction targets and compare activities that 

will help them achieve their reductions. As activities are selected, the tool calculates the progress 

towards achieving reduction goals, along with calculating the cost and CO2e savings. The CLIP 

tool also includes sections for agencies to include education and outreach activities to engage 

staff and the public related to climate change issues and actions on site. The CLIP tool has a 

quality control feature to verify data input and automatically check inventories for quality 

assurance. 

GSA Carbon Footprint Tool 

GSA is a federal agency that manages the majority of the federal government’s building stock 

through leases to individual agencies. The GSA has developed an online tool free of charge for 

agencies to use for inventorying.11 This tool was developed by Noblis under contract with GSA. 

The tool is designed to calculate an agency’s baseline by scope and individual building, assist 

with developing reduction targets, and compile reports for annual GHG reporting (through the 

FEMP GHG report). The tool is intended to populate data fields using other federal reporting 

tools, such as tools associated with GSA’s E-Gov Travel Program, Public Building Services, and 

Fleet Program. The Carbon Footprint Tool follows the World Resources Institute’s GHG 

Protocol, which is based upon the International Organization for Standardization’s (often 

referred to as ISO) 14064-1. 

ghgTrack

A proprietary tool was selected for comparison with the free tools available to the federal

government in order to determine how it compared to the other tools. The team searched for a 

simple, online tool that was easily accessible and customizable. The tool selected for the pilot 

was ghgTrack, which is designed by First Carbon Solutions. The tool costs vary depending on 

the type of license, how many licenses are purchased, and how many additional modules are 

 

10 “The Climate Leadership in Parks (CLIP) Tool.” NPS, 2012. Accessed Oct. 31, 2012: 

http://www.nps.gov/climatefriendlyparks/CLIPtool/index.html. 

11 “GSA Carbon Footprint Tool.” GSA (undated). Accessed Oct. 31, 2012: https://www.carbonfootprint.gsa.gov/. 
14 

included. The cost for an office building/nonindustrial facility license ranges from $450/site 

(single license) to $97.50/license (>100 licenses). Additional modules are available for audit, 

corrective action; and health, safety, and environmental compliance. There is also an additional 

fee of $143.58 per hour for maintenance of software as a service that involves any customized 

changes. In order for the tool to have all the desired action planning functionality, some 

customized changes would be required initially. The software is on the GSA schedule, and the 

full breakdown of the costs is available on the GSA website.

12

The tool is customizable to allow for accounting and reporting of GHG emissions, along with 

some other environmental metrics, such as water, waste, recycling, etc. ghgTrack is an online 

repository for utility bills and other documents, and allows for batch uploads of data to be 

entered into the tool. Data entry pages, dashboards, and reports are available and customizable. 

First Carbon Solutions was willing to work with the pilot team to establish the necessary 

infrastructure and provide support during the pilot. 

Agency GHG emissions reporting has only been required since January 2011, therefore, 

improvements are being made to update many tools. Both of the free, federal-specific tools were 

being modified during the pilot; therefore, the older versions of the tools were piloted. 

Criteria for Measuring Success

In order to determine the success of each tool, the team identified criteria that would measure the 

impact and effectiveness of the tools. The criteria were broken up into basic information (e.g., 

name of the reviewer and the name of the tool being evaluated), criteria, and feedback on the 

tool. The criteria categories were identified by the needs of the pilot participants. Criteria 

included: 

• Level of user-friendliness 

• Whether technical assistance was available from the tool developers 

• Level of straightforwardness of the data input navigation 

• Whether the tool allowed the user to track the data source points or reference points 

• Whether the emissions factors within the tool were consistent with federal reporting 

requirements 

• Whether the tool was able to generate useful and tangible results 

• Cost of the tool 

• Whether the tool aligned with federal reporting requirements overall 

• Number of hours required to input data into the tool and utilize the tool to generate 

results. 

The feedback category included numerical ranking for the criteria related to user-friendliness, 

navigation, data input, and the results section. The participants were also asked to comment on 

 

12 “GSA eLibrary.” GSA (undated). Accessed Oct. 31, 2012: http://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov/ElibMain/home.do. 
15 

what they thought functioned well within the tool, what they did not like, and what needed 

improvement; and to provide any additional comments or feedback. 

Similar criteria were developed for the action planning modules because action planning is 

crucial to GHG mitigation and monitoring. All criteria were the same for the action planning 

module as they were for the inventory modules within each tool, except for the addition of two 

additional criteria: consistency with current action plans and whether the tool would help with 

mitigation efforts. A successful tool would rank highly in both the qualitative and quantitative 

portions of the evaluations using the criteria outlined above. 

3.3 Pilot Phase 

Federal agency GHG reporting has been, up to the point of the pilot project, at the agency or 

headquarters level. The top-down data collection methodology precludes providing more concise 

reporting for the agencies; the agency-level data are highly aggregated with assumptions applied 

across all units where data are not easily available. There are generalizations made around 

agency emissions when data are not available. For example, when data are not available for 

agency-owned housing, fuel estimates based on one person’s energy consumption are aggregated 

across the entire residential portfolio. This may not be the most accurate approach, and there is 

room for discrepancies. These generalizations prevent any understanding of what the emissions 

are at the unit level (e.g., forest or park). In addition, units are also not able to conduct realistic 

action planning around their operations. Numerous federal agencies are exploring how to report 

GHGs annually through the use of various tools to reduce the burden of collecting, reporting, and 

monitoring data. The participating pilot teams took on the challenge of conducting inventories 

from the unit level using the agency-level tools. The challenges arose mostly from the time and 

resources required to collect granular data, trying to translate an agency-level tool to unit-level 

reporting, and the functionality of the tool in general. 

Appendices A and B provide detailed results from the pilot project by inventory module, action 

planning module, and specific tool. Pilot teams were asked to provide feedback in terms of 

whether they would want to use the tool again, what they liked or disliked, what needed 

improvement, what functioned well, and any other additional comments they might have. 

The time requirements for data entry for each of the tools varied. Manual uploading of the data 

ranged from four to six hours per unit for each of the tools. The batch upload accelerated the 

data input, reducing the time requirement to around 1 hour per unit; however, this was dependent 

upon whether the users were able to operate the upload correctly. Some of the pilot participants 

had used the CLIP tool in previous inventories, so the level of familiarity with the specific tool 

also helped reduce the time requirement associated with data entry. 

Pilot Launch 

The pilot activities included training and launching each of the three tools. The trainings were 

Web-based, interactive sessions, which introduced the team to each tool and allowed time for 

dialogue and questions. The schedule was created such that one tool was launched at a time, and 

enough time was allotted to allow for the team members to become familiar with each tool and 

populate it with data for GHG inventories. Regular conference calls were scheduled throughout 
16 

each of the data input periods for the three tools, so team members could ask questions, share 

successes and problems, and brainstorm solutions. 

Inventory Modules

The inventory modules of the selected tools were evaluated based on the criteria mentioned 

previously and full results from the feedback process are provided in Appendix A. Appendix A 

provides the feedback from the team members with regards to the project criteria. This inventory 

module section summarizes the success of each tool, based on the pilot participants’ feedback. 

CLIP Tool

The pilot participants noted that the CLIP tool was both easy and challenging to use in terms of 

user-friendliness. The disagreement in usability is most likely due to the level of experience with 

the tool. Unlike the other two tools, the CLIP tool had been used previously by some of the 

participants. Familiarity with the tool likely resulted in positive feedback, whereas those who had 

never used the tool may have found it initially challenging. The CLIP tool operates in a 

Microsoft Excel-based platform, which does not allow for direct access to remote data because

data are stored on a hard drive on a local computer. The tool is designed with extensive macros 

and background calculations; it allows for ease of moving between different sections of the tool, 

as is demonstrated in the control sheet (Figure 3). 

Figure 3. CLIP tool inventory control sheet. 

Image from NPS
17 

The pilot teams found that the Excel-based platform was relatively easy to navigate. The 

formulas in the tool are protected to prevent changes to calculations; however, this precluded 

users from seeing any of the calculations, as well as understanding why errors occurred. 

Additionally, the CLIP tool was designed specifically for NPS, and drop-down menu options are 

limited to specific parks. This narrow selection limited the usability of the tool by USFS units. 

The CLIP tool was designed for full-park reporting. If the units wanted to track regions or 

districts separately in the CLIP tool, they would need to report them in separate copies of the tool 

and then aggregate the information to the unit level manually. This is demonstrated in Figure 4, 

which shows an example of a data entry page for stationary combustion, where the data inputs 

are lumped by fuel type for all park operations, but do not allow for separate data inputs for 

different buildings or activities within the park. 

Figure 4. CLIP tool inventory—data entry page for stationary combustion. 

Image from NPS

The CLIP tool support team was not responsive to inquiries from the pilot teams or from the 

NREL coordinators. The lack of technical assistance proved problematic as some of the issues 

were due to the tool not functioning correctly. In the long term, this can be a strong detractor to 

a tool and could indicate a lack of reliability and maintenance on the tool. 
18 

The ability to navigate efficiently through the data input portion of the tool is very important for 

reporting units. The quantity of data can be significant, and data input can be time consuming. 

The CLIP tool had a good navigation system for manual data entry; however, it did not offer any 

type of automated data-entry system, so all data had to be manually entered. 

The transparency of the tool calculations is very important to enable users to track the types of 

calculations and assumptions being made, as well as to see what emissions factors are being 

used. This is important to know because the users are required to report in compliance with 

FEMP reporting requirements. The CLIP tool was designed prior to the federal reporting 

requirements being published and had the original intent of providing a tool for NPS units to 

assess their carbon footprint. It is not currently in strict alignment with the federal reporting 

requirements, but the developers are intending to modify the tool to meet those requirements. 

The CLIP tool hides and protects calculations so that users are not able to see what calculations 

or emissions factors are being used. This is being done to preserve the integrity of the tool from 

inadvertent changes, but it has the side effect of prohibiting the users from tracking how the 

calculations are being made. It is not clear what emissions factors the CLIP tool uses; thus, the 

ability to verify consistency with federal reporting requirements was restricted. 

GSA Carbon Footprint Tool

The pilot team had different reactions to the GSA Carbon Footprint Tool. Some found the tool 

to be very user friendly, and others found it easy but not straightforward. The tool also did not 

function consistently in different Web browsers. The GSA Carbon Footprint Tool is Web based. 

The ability to access the tool online was occasionally challenging due to lack of either Internet 

connectivity or the tool site being down, which removed the users from more direct control of 

their data. Server problems and connectivity also made accessing the tool occasionally difficult. 

Online tools need to be extremely transparent; and the functionality needs to allow the users to 

maneuver around entering their data, accessing the data, connecting to what calculations are 

being made, and translating the data into reports as well as action planning. 

The data entry section within the GSA Carbon Footprint Tool was well organized and followed 

the federal reporting requirements. See Figure 5. The tool also provides easy access to 

calculation assumptions. The organization of the tool is oriented towards agency-level reporting, 

which increases transparency. The tool allows different units within one agency to report 

separately, so the agency is able to discern the GHG impacts from each of the different units. 

However, the tool does not allow for reporting on a scale smaller than a unit, so an agency 

cannot report which facilities or which activities within the unit is contributing the most GHG 

emissions. This kind of detail would inform units as to which activities or facilities they should 

target for action planning.
19 

Figure 5. Screenshot of the GSA Carbon Footprint Tool inventory module. 

Image from GSA

The GSA Carbon Footprint Tool could be set up to report for different districts or facilities 

within the forests or parks (see Figure 6). 
20 

Figure 6. Screenshot of GSA Carbon Footprint Tool enterprise profile. 

Image from GSA

Also relevant to the user-friendly aspect was the availability of technical assistance. The GSA 

Carbon Footprint Tool team was very responsive to questions and difficulties in navigating 

through the tool. Additionally, they were interested in any feedback from the teams on how to 

improve the tool. 

The data entry aspect of any tool is important and potentially time and resource consuming. The 

ability to navigate efficiently through the data input portion of the tool is important for reporting 

units. Data entry in the GSA Carbon Footprint Tool can be semi-automated through a batch 

upload function; the batch upload function allows the users to upload all their data through 

formatted CSV (comma-separated values) files. The GSA Carbon Footprint Tool also described 

the data requirements and provided alternatives for how to collect and calculate certain data. 

The GSA Carbon Footprint Tool provides links throughout the tool to a technical report that 

documents what assumptions were being made and what calculations were required for the 

different data points. This tool seems to provide the greatest transparency around the source data 

and aligns closely with federal reporting requirements and data sources. 

One of the primary goals of the pilot project was to assess the tools’ ability to aid in setting 

targets for and analyzing progress towards reducing carbon emissions. This goal was kept in 

mind while assessing both the inventory portion of the tool as well as the action planning 

portion. The pilot teams found the GSA Carbon Footprint Tool results to be somewhat useful and 

actionable, but limited to the prescribed action planning options the tool offers. Some of the 
21 

action planning/dashboard functionality also has some problems with the graphs not providing 

results. The ability to target the action planning to specific operations or activities within a unit 

would help to make the results more tangible. 

ghgTrack Tool 

The ghgTrack tool is also cloud based; consistent accessibility and control were found to be 

challenging for the cloud-based tools. Online tools need to be extremely transparent; and the 

functionality needs to allow the users to maneuver around, enter and access their data, connect to 

calculations, and translate the data into reports and action planning. 

The teams found the ghgTrack tool somewhat difficult to navigate. The tool developers set up 

each team with baseline tool functionality, based on each team’s data collection requirements.

Some functionality was desired by the teams, to test, but was not included in the baseline set up, 

thus limiting the team’s ability to fully test the tool. The ghgTrack dashboard provides quick 

visual results in terms of varying baselines, emissions classification, and facilities breakdown. 

Initial data entry for the tool was conducted through batch uploads. The batch upload template 

was predefined by the user for different data sources, and participants found this logical and easy 

to use. Figure 7 shows the features available in the ghgTrack tool, whereas Figure 8 shows the 

batch upload template. 
22 

Figure 7. Screenshot of the ghgTrack dashboard. 

Image from FirstCarbon Solutions
23 

Figure 8. The ghgTrack data upload template. 

Image from FirstCarbon Solutions

The organization of the tools varied and allowed for varying degrees of flexibility around how 

the units could report their emissions. The ability to report in a disaggregated manner provides 

information around where the emissions are originating and would facilitate action planning 

around specific buildings or activities. A customized ghgTrack tool could be set up for separate 

reporting for the different facilities and activities within the reporting unit.

The availability of technical assistance was an important factor and closely related to user 

friendliness. The ghgTrack team provided free access to the ghgTrack tool and technical 

assistance to the pilot project participants at no charge. The ghgTrack team provided either an 

on-site or webinar-based tool set up and training for the pilot teams specific to each team’s needs

within the constraints of the time and resources allocated. The ghgTrack team was very 

responsive, however, was not able to provide comprehensive functionality for the tool beyond 

the baseline, which limited a complete functionality review of the tool. 

The ability to navigate efficiently through the data input portion of the tool is very important for 

reporting units. The quantity of data can be significant, and data input can be time consuming. 

The batch upload function allowed the users to upload their data from other sources. The 

ghgTrack tool offered the batch upload option from both formatted CSV files as well as other 

reports. Additionally, they provide a service to have data transcribed into the tool for the user. 

While this service can be convenient, it also removes quality control over the data entry. 
24 

ghgTrack does not offer the option for manual data entry; however, the data can be manually 

modified once it is in the tool. 

The ghgTrack tool provided reasonably easy access to the different emissions factors that are 

used, which can also be easily modified. References and calculations were not available for 

understanding how the emissions factors were determined. The ghgTrack tool is an open form 

tool, so the developers can cater the tool to meet any requirements desired by the customer. 

Therefore, the ghgTrack tool could feasibly be set up to align with federal requirements in terms 

of both the types of calculations being made as well as the emissions factors being used. 

With regards to results, the ghgTrack tool provides graphics to see which activities (as structured 

for data input) and which scopes are contributing the most to the carbon emissions. Feasibly, if 

the user is inputting the data in a more disaggregated manner—defining separate activities for all 

the different facilities and buildings and operations—then the results will allow them to see 

which are providing the highest emissions. There were no action planning tools within the 

ghgTrack available for the pilot teams to allow users to assess return on investment (ROI) or 

evaluate potential carbon reductions around different mitigation activities. 

Action Planning Module

Federal agencies have been required to report GHG emissions data, however not many have 

taken action to prioritize and reduce emissions. Action planning tools or modules within 

inventory tools are essential to agencies that want and/or need to reduce their GHG emissions to 

meet targets established for their agencies. The action planning modules of the GSA Carbon 

Footprint Tool and the CLIP tool were evaluated based on criteria for the inventory modules 

with slight variances (see full results in Appendix A). The ghgTrack tool was not evaluated for 

action planning as the teams did not have access to full-tool set up, and thus, were not able to 

adequately evaluate the tool for action planning. The ghgTrack tool could be set up for some 

action planning with a contract in place; however, it was not available for the pilot project. The 

action planning criteria identified by the pilot team were:

• User friendliness

• Technical assistance

• Input and navigation / decision making 

• Consistency with current action plans 

• Tangible results

• Cost (discussed in inventory assessment section)

• Helpfulness with mitigation efforts. 

Additional feedback was requested in terms of whether the teams would consider using the tool 

again, what they liked or disliked, what needed improvement, what functioned well, and any 

other additional comments they might have. 
25 

The users did not request technical assistance during the action planning assessment as often as 

during the inventory assessment. 

CLIP Tool

The CLIP tool had the most diverse action planning module (Figures 9 and 10) that allowed 

users to evaluate different scenarios for carbon reduction. The scenarios are grouped into 

different sections: energy management, transportation management, waste management, other 

emissions sources, and education and outreach. The action planning could be based on setting a 

goal around a targeted reduction, as well as looking at specific activities.

Figure 9. CLIP action planning module for energy management goal setting. 

Image from NPS
26 

Figure 10. CLIP action planning module for energy management – 

assessment of specific mitigation action items. 

Image from NPS

The different sections of the action planning module generate different scenarios or actions that 

the user can evaluate. The scenario evaluations offer some specific alternatives, calculate the 

potential cost savings and CO2e reductions, and identify team members and the level of effort

(see Figure 10). Some of the sections include emissions reduction calculators that allow the user 

to enter information about the current facility equipment and organization; and then select from 

various potential upgrades or modifications to determine the potential energy, cost, and 

emissions savings. Some of the calculators require that the user have in-depth knowledge, not 

only about the existing facility equipment, but also about the feasibility of the different upgrade 

options. There is a broad level of detail offered in the CLIP action planning tool that allows the 

users to assess very specific scenarios.

The pilot teams provided feedback on several different aspects of the action planning module. 

Despite the extensive scenarios offered, the tool was limited by shortcomings in the spreadsheet 
27 

functionality, where the macros would not always work, and the tool would not function at all 

without them. Additionally, the inventory module and the action planning modules are in two 

separate tools and are not accessible simultaneously. The ability to look back at the relevant 

inventory information while in the action planning module is useful, but not effectively done in 

any of the tools assessed. 

For the action planning scenarios that do not have drop-down menus, the research needed is 

extensive and would deter their use; more drop-down options are desirable. The pilot participants 

would prefer that the selections available in the energy management section cover more than 

changing lightbulbs and upgrading furnaces and boilers; and that the fleet management section 

include a broader range of vehicle types. Users are time constrained, and the resources required 

to collect the inventory data alone are significant. Additional time and knowledge to research and 

understand other action planning options are not feasible for many agency units. 

Otherwise, the tool had a “How to Use this Module” guide and smoothly connected data from 

the inventory to the action planning module. It also included a good Action Planning Summary 

with tables and graphics, and an Action Plan Document with a write up featuring summary tables 

and graphics as well as descriptions of all the mitigation strategies and activities the user 

selected.

The pilot teams had varying responses around the navigability of the action planning portion of 

the CLIP tool. Some found it very easy to navigate, and others found it to be not entirely 

straightforward. 

With regards to consistency with current action planning, the pilot participants had mixed 

feedback on the CLIP tool with some finding it to be inconsistent, but adaptable, and others 

finding it consistent. The potential inconsistency with the CLIP tool action planning module 

might be due to the tool being targeted for NPS units and not for USFS units. The tool was able 

to provide some action planning results that were useful and actionable; however, the teams were 

unsure as to if it would be helpful with mitigation efforts.

GSA Carbon Footprint Tool

The GSA Carbon Footprint Tool’s action planning sections include a dashboard, an ROI 

calculator, and a benchmarking tool. The dashboard assesses the potential carbon savings around 

different types of activities (e.g., video teleconferencing, mass transit participation, off-peak 

commuting, telecommuting participation, ENERGY STAR® monitor replacement, alternate 

work schedule, server virtualization, etc.). Sliding bars on the screen indicate the percentage 

increase in employee participation for an activity; the percentage is applied to the unit/agency to 

determine the potential GHG emissions savings for a specific activity. A screenshot of this 

feature is shown in Figure 11. 
28 

Figure 11. GSA Carbon Footprint Tool dashboard. 

Image from GSA

The feedback from the pilot teams was that the overall functionality of the action planning 

sections was not ideal. It was difficult to find the action planning section, and the dashboard 

needs more subject areas to assess (e.g., lighting changes, low-energy equipment upgrades, fleet 

upgrades, etc.). Additionally, the dashboard needs to allow the user to select specific sites where 

actions should be implemented to evaluate the impact on emissions. Some of the dashboard 

sliders were disabled. The help link (“Some sliders require more information before they will be 

enabled”) was very useful to help understand what information was needed. 

The pilot teams found the ROI calculator useful. The ROI calculator covers interior and exterior 

lighting, solar power, and computer equipment investments. However, the pilot teams indicated 

that the scenarios are very general and do not allow for assessment upgrades in facilities nor 

assessment of specific scenarios and activities, so this calculator could be improved upon. 

The benchmarking tool, shown in Figure 12, allows for comparisons using different filter and 

graph parameters. It is somewhat limited in functionality with limited data points. This tool can 

be very helpful for prioritzing types of buildings with higher GHG emissions and which 
29 

buildings to target for action planning. If a unit has a significant number of buildings to assess 

individually, the benchmarking tool may not be ideal for assessing the building portfolio. 

Figure 12. GSA Carbon Footprint Tool benchmarking feature. 

Image from GSA

Feedback from the pilot teams on the tool’s navigability for action planning indicated that the 

GSA Carbon Footprint Tool was challenging to navigate, but learnable. This tool did not appear 

to be consistent with the pilot teams’ current action plans from previous years’ inventories using 

the EPA Climate Leaders tool, which is no longer available. This might be because the GSA 

Carbon Footprint Tool is targeted for agency-level reporting and action planning that does not 

apply well to the unit level. As with the CLIP tool, the GSA Carbon Footprint Tool was able to 

provide some action planning results that were useful and actionable. However, it was unclear as

to whether the tool would be helpful with mitigation efforts. 

3.4 Post-Pilot Phase

During the post-pilot phase, NREL and the pilot participants reviewed the tools and assessed the 

functions and capabilities that would be ideal in a tool. It was determined that no tools met all of 

the criteria outlined in the pre-pilot phase. There was not any consensus amongst the pilot teams 
30 

about which tool met the needs of the pilot units; thus, there is no recommendation about a single

tool that the GYA and Tongass units can use moving forward. The NPS and USFS agencies are 

currently using different tools that meet their individual needs better. The NPS has the CLIP tool 

that is specific for GHG accounting and action planning for parks. It is not an effective tool in its 

current configuration for non-park units. The USFS use the EPA Climate Leaders tool in its 

previous accounting. Its needs are mostly met through the GSA Carbon Footprint Tool. 

However, this tool is limited in that it is designed for reporting and action planning at the agency 

level and not for the unit level. This is due to the formatting that doesn’t have room for 

disaggregating the unit-level data to a point that effective action planning can be done. NPS and 

USFS units are typically diffuse facilities covering large areas with some remote and/or standalone parts. With facilities composed of many different types of activities, it is necessary to be 

able to report the different activities within a unit separately and to be able to discern which 

activities have the best potential for GHG mitigation action planning. There were different 

aspects of the different tools that the pilot teams did find to be effective and certain tool 

characteristics that they felt were important to have, which are summarized in Table 4. An ideal 

tool would include many features, which are outlined in this section. These features were 

identified based on the experiences of the pilot team during the pilot of the three different GHG 

inventorying and action planning tools.

Technical support is needed for any tool, although the form in which the support is provided 

can vary. A user’s guide, similar to that provided with the CLIP tool, proved useful. The GSA 

Carbon Footprint Tool provided notes about different data points, as well as a link to the TSD on 

the White House CEQ’s website. Direct support for this tool was provided by the development 

team. A training session to understand how the tool operates is important to introduce the 

features and functionality of the tool. Responsive technical support teams, training sessions, 

guides, and notes that assist with using the tool all prove useful. 

The desired operating platform may depend on the comfort levels of the users. The pilot project 

revealed that depending on their comfort level, some of the participants found using the CLIP 

tool easier because it was an Excel-based tool with which they were very familiar. The 

functionality of the GSA Carbon Footprint Tool and the ghgTrack tool, both of which were cloud 

based, was not as effective due to the difficulty in navigating around the tool sites. Having the 

ability to complete the inventory in an Excel file (with CSV batch files that can be uploaded to a 

Web-based tool) seems to offer the best of both platforms. The batch uploading functionality 

needs to be seamless and straightforward. The action planning modules seem to function better 

in a Web-based platform as this allows for easier access to inventory data, and is capable of 

providing more extensive assessment tools and visual aids. The navigation aspect in the action 

planning module must be straightforward and simple for effective usability. 

The inventorying and action planning modules need to be included in any tool and should not 

be stand-alone, disconnected items. The inventory process can be very time consuming. 

Therefore, the ability to quickly translate accurate and granular data to the action planning 

module is critical. 

The ability to understand the inventory data and translate information into specific emissions 

reduction activities is very important on both an agency and unit level. The CLIP and the GSA 

Carbon Footprint Tools set up their action planning components differently, both of which had 
31 

positive aspects. The CLIP tool provided very specific facility scenarios using drop-down menus 

that were relatively easy for the users to apply. Both tools could be improved by providing a 

broader range of specific scenarios that the user could develop for specific sites or facilities. The 

GSA Carbon Footprint Tool had several different action planning features that were useful. The 

ROI calculator was particularly good, but could benefit from more scenarios. The dashboard in 

the GSA Carbon Footprint tool allowed for forecasting based on a select number of activities, 

which was very useful, but again needs to include a broader range of activities. The 

benchmarking tool had the potential to be very useful, but seemed to require many data points in 

order for it to be fully functional. A combination of all these different types of action planning 

tools with a broad range of specific scenarios that can be assessed would be very beneficial.

Ideally a tool would provide an agency at the headquarters level down to the unit-level with the 

ability to create an inventory, set goals, identify reduction measures, and track progress. None of 

the tools evaluated provided an effective means to accomplish all of these steps. 

The teams also identified some functionality aspects during their reviews of the tools that they 

felt were important in the data collection process. Reporting flexibility is essential to the 

success of a tool. There are many different reports that can be required at different agency levels. 

Ideally, the tool should provide a variety of different reporting formats as well as being 

customizable to non-standard reporting. The reports should also allow the users to view results in 

both an aggregated format (for the agency level) as well as for very specific scenarios (for unit 

level action planning purposes).

The tools should be relatively intuitive, allowing users to quickly learn how to navigate through 

different sections, enter and analyze data, and create reports. At the unit level, resources are 

limited, and the time required to collect and process the data required for GHG reporting can 

easily overwhelm reporting staff. The structure of the tool should be as efficient and streamlined 

as possible, which can be done through a number of different methods (e.g., batch uploads, 

connections to travel data and utility data, etc.). 

The data collection and entry processes require tracking of many data points that are collected 

from many different sources. Management of the data collection and entry requires keeping 

track of what data are required, where the data are coming from, how the data are being 

collected, and who is responsible for those data points. Incorporating a tracking system into the 

tool for not only the required data; but also tasks associated with collecting and entering the data 

are beneficial for the users to ensure that nothing is missed and the reporting is timely. With 

manual data entry for either batch uploads or individual data point entry, there is an opportunity 

to transcribe the data incorrectly.

An error checking system that can identify and highlight data entries that might not be correct 

can ensure that the reporting is accurate. This can be done through order of magnitude 

comparisons of data entry points to previous years, or regional or national averages. Identifying 

data points that have no data or have been left blank is also helpful. Some of the tools do allow 

for internal unit conversions; the users enter data in the units for which they are collected, 

minimizing opportunities for errors when converting to other units (e.g., cords to British thermal 

units, kilowatt-hours to CO2e, etc.). This also ensures that the same unit conversion rates are 

being utilized because the conversion factors are then internal to the tool.
32 

Compatibility with other tools and reporting requirements is critical to minimize the time 

demand in transcribing that information. The tool should allow for compatibility with the EPA 

Portfolio Manager, the FEMP GHG Data Report, commuter surveys, business travel systems 

being used by any agency, and any other regular reporting mechanism. Compatibility with GIS 

(geographic information systems) can also be helpful for units that cover large areas, as well as 

for agency staff at headquarters who are tracking emissions on a national level. 

Compatibility with the existing commuter surveys were desired for the pilot project; however, 

the pilot participants found that the survey results were typically at the agency level and could 

not be applied to the individual parks and forests. This was also the case for some of the travel 

data (GSA TravelTrax, etc.), which were not granular enough to be used on a site or unit level. 

The ability to have the data at the unit level is not only useful for agency reporting, but also 

allows the units to use the data for their individual reporting and unit-level action planning. 

Because commuter surveys are only required every two years for federal reporting, and as a 

Scope 3 category, it may not be wise to track regularly due to the level of effort required to 

collect employee data; it is often difficult for unit-level staff to justify collecting data. The 

resources needed to collect data, offer incentives, and track progress are high compared to the 

benefits associated with a Scope 3 emissions source, over which the agency does not have direct 

control. A tool that provides an easier and faster tracking system would be ideal for both unitlevel and agency-level reporting and mitigation efforts. 

Data entry options would be helpful in a tool. The GSA Carbon Footprint Tool offers options 

for both individual manual data input, as well as template/batch uploads. The batch upload 

option, while potentially convenient, had some glitches that made it challenging to use for some 

of the pilot teams. However, providing multiple methods of data input is very desirable. The 

ghgTrack tool offered third-party data input, which could be desirable. One of the pilot team 

members was hesitant about this option as there was no information about the third-party, and 

thus the confidence level in that relationship was very low. With a data collection and input 

system firmly established and a strong relationship with a third-party provider, the time demand 

on the units would be minimized. However, there would likely be a fee associated with the use 

of a third-party provider, which the units would need to assess individually to determine the 

practicability of that option. 

A successful tool will allow users to enter data on a regular basis, without adding extra burden to 

staff responsibilities. The data collected would ideally feed into a system that allows region-wide 

compilation and analysis of collected data; monitoring of progress towards GHG reduction 

targets; and enough granular information to inform decisions for reducing GHGs on a site-level, 

unit-level, and region-wide basis. The system, if an online tool, would allow changes and 

modification by authorized users so that updates could be posted online for sharing across sites. 

The data collected would serve two purposes: to inform decisions for making GHG 

reductions/tracking progress towards GHG reduction goals and to provide headquarters with data 

to meet annual GHG reporting requirements. 

In order to provide a history behind the data and to allow for consistency in the data collection, 

the ability to make notes along with the data entries is important. The notes allow the users to 

provide points of contact, data sourcing, calculation assumptions, and other important comments 

that will allow the user or others to be able to repeat the data collection process using the same 
33 

methodology. Data points—from one year to the next—that are collected using different 

methodologies will not allow for consistent reporting. Without consistency between different 

years, comparisons will not provide any meaningful results, and the users will not have accurate 

information about whether their action planning has achieved real results. 

Access control and accountability are essential in a successful tool. During the data collection 

and entry process, if multiple people are collecting and entering data, it is important to control 

who is entering what data. It is also helpful to have tiers of access, with the higher levels having 

full access and the lower levels having only access to the data they are responsible for reporting. 

This type of access was available in the GSA Carbon Footprint Tool and proved useful to the 

pilot participants.

A simple navigation system is beneficial to be able to move from one section of the data 

collection to another as well as to other parts of the tool. The naming convention for the 

different areas of the tools should also be self-evident. The CLIP tool had a simple naming 

convention; however, the other tools were not as straightforward in their naming.

The strengths and weaknesses of each tool are summarized in Table 4, below. 

Table 4. Summary of Tool Strengths and Weaknesses

Tool Inventory Module Action Planning Module

Strengths Weaknesses Strengths Weaknesses

GSA 

Carbon 

Footprint 

Tool

Capable of 

populating data 

fields with other

federal reporting 

tools; data entry 

well-organized 

and follows

federal reporting 

requirements; 

easy access to 

calculation 

assumptions. 

Tool allows 

different units in 

an agency to 

report separately. 

Responsive 

support team

Automated, batch 

uploads

Connectivity issues 

with cloud-based 

platform; does not 

allow reporting on a 

scale smaller than a 

unit, which prevents 

seeing the largest 

contributors within a 

unit; glitches in batch 

uploads.

Helpful building 

benchmarking tool to 

help prioritize building 

retrofit candidates 

The feedback from the 

pilot team was that the 

action planning tool was 

challenging to navigate, 

but learnable. 

Some of the action planning 

functionality has some 

problems with the graphs 

not providing results; no 

ability to target the action 

planning to specific 

operations or activities at a 

unit-level. 

Results limited to the 

prescribed action planning 

options the tool offers; 

overall functionality of the 

action planning sections 

was not ideal; ROI 

calculator useful, but 

doesn’t allow detailed input 

for specific facilities, 

scenarios, or activities. 

Benchmarking tool has 

limited scope; not ideal for 

large portfolio of buildings. 

 
34 

Tool Inventory Module Action Planning Module

Strengths Weaknesses Strengths Weaknesses

ghgTrack Tool can be 

customized for

the data reporting 

needs of each 

team and to meet 

federal reporting 

requirements; 

easy-to-use,

automated batch 

upload of data; 

dashboard 

provides quick 

visual results in 

terms of varying 

baselines, 

emissions 

classification, and 

facilities 

breakdown; 

responsive 

development 

team; easy access 

to emissions 

factors.

Connectivity issues 

with Web-based 

platform in certain 

locations; considered

somewhat challenging 

to use and navigate; 

there is a fee for use 

and customization. 

Graphics allow clear 

visibility of emission 

sources.

Action planning 

functionality was not 

available for teams to test.

CLIP 

Tool

Baseline 

emission 

inventory 

specifically for 

NPS; Excelbased tool 

relatively easy to 

navigate. 

Does not allow direct 

access to remote data; 

no automated data 

entry; drop-down 

menu options limited 

to specific parks; no 

easy way to track 

regions within a park 

separately; support 

team difficult to 

contact; no 

information on how 

calculations are made, 

and therefore, cannot 

verify consistency 

with federal 

requirements.

Allows users to assess 

different mitigation 

actions. Most diverse 

action planning module; 

broad level of detail 

offered to allow users to 

assess specific scenarios; 

good Action Planning 

Summary document.

Macros would not always 

work and the tool would not

function at all without them; 

inventory module and 

action planning module not 

accessible simultaneously; 

detailed information needed 

for actions not located in 

the drop-down menu that 

may deter use. More dropdowns desirable, especially 

in fleet management and 

facility energy efficiency; 

action planning module 

might be due to the tool 

being targeted for NPS units 

and not for USFS units.
35 

4 Summary

The land management agencies who participated in the GHG inventory and action planning tool 

pilot project have recognized the importance of compiling and understanding agency GHG 

emissions. Staff within these agencies’ participating units voluntarily participated in this pilot in 

order to identify whether any currently available GHG inventorying and action planning tools 

met their needs. Staff determined that an ideal tool would feature:

• Comprehensive and readily available technical support, available in a variety of formats

• A familiar, transparent, and reliable operating platform 

• Both inventorying and action planning modules, useable at a unit, regional, or agencywide level 

• A variety of standardized reporting formats and flexibility for creating non-standard 

reporting 

• An intuitive, user-friendly design with simple navigation to facilitate turnover of tool 

users.

• A tracking system, with the ability to make notes, for capturing where the data came 

from, the data’s relevant time period, and additional data points as well as points of 

contact and calculation assumptions 

• An error-checking system for identifying and highlighting erroneous or missing data 

points 

• Data entry options including manual data input and template/batch uploads 

• Compatibility with other tools, and reporting requirements and mechanisms

• Access control and accountability to enable differing levels of access

• Low or no costs associated with tool use 

• Direct data population into the FEMP GHG and Sustainability Reporting Workbook. 

In an effort to identify a tool that aligned the most with the above requirements, the pilot team 

willingly tested three different tools available at the time of the pilot. While there were benefits 

to each tool that was piloted, no single tool met all of the needs of the participants. 

Moving forward, existing tools could be modified or a new tool could be created. It is apparent 

that the developers of all three tools are actively working to improve the tools and, in the case of 

the two federal tools, to align them with federal reporting requirements. It is likely that the 

agencies involved in this pilot could work with these tool developers in an effort to influence the 

future development of these tools. Land management agencies are proactively attempting to 

quantify GHG emissions and identify reduction opportunities, and as such are seeking unifying 

principles, criteria, and approaches to the intensifying environmental management pressures on 

public lands. Hopefully, these agencies can work together to influence the revision or creation of 
36 

a tool that can effectively support these efforts at all levels, from an individual unit through the 

agency-level. 
37 

Appendix A – Inventory Module Evaluation Results and 

Comments
38 

Table A-1. Inventory Module Evaluation Results

Criteria GSA Carbon Footprint Tool ghgTrack CLIP

User friendliness

Very user friendly/easy to navigate

(2); easy navigation, but not 

straightforward (2)

Difficult to navigate, recommend after 

significant modifications (2), challenging to 

navigate, but able to learn (1)

Very user friendly/easy to navigate (3), 

challenging to navigate, but able to learn 

(1)

Technical assistance Yes (4) Yes (4) Unsure(2), no (1), yes

Data input navigation

Very user friendly (2); easy 

navigation, but not straight forward 

(1); challenging to navigate, but able 

to learn (1)

Easy navigation, but not 

straightforward (1), challenging to 

navigate, but able to learn (2), difficult to 

navigate, recommend after significant 

modifications (1)

Very user friendly (2); easy 

navigation, but not straightforward (1), 

difficult to navigate, recommend after 

significant modifications (1)

Data reference tracking

Enables users to enter either the 

source of the data or the year for all 

data points (4)

Enables user to enter both the source of the data 

and year of the

data for all data points (2), enables 

user to enter both the source of the data and 

year of the data for all data points (2)

Enables users to enter either the source of 

the data or the year for all data points (3); 

tool does not enable user to input the 

source of the data or the year of the data 

(1)

Consistency of factors

Consistent with current reporting 

(3), not consistent, recommend this 

tool after significant modifications

(1)

Consistent with current reporting needs / 

requirements (3), not 

consistent, recommend this tool after 

significant modifications (1)

Consistent with current reporting 

needs/requirements (4)

Tangible results

Some of results are useful and 

actionable (3)

Results are not in a useful format for 

implementation (3)

Useful results that can be put into 

action and monitored (2); some of the 

results are useful and actionable (1)

Cost Free Licensing fee applies Free

Aligns with FEMP Yes (3), no (1) Unsure (4) Yes (3), unsure (2)

Time requirement See notes below See notes below See notes below

Feedback on using tool again

Average rankings shown below

A scale of 1 to 5 was provided for ranking tools with 1 being “excellent” (i.e. would definitely use again) and 5 being “would not use again”

 User friendliness /navigation 2.25 3.75 1.75

 Data input 2.75 3 2.25

 Results 2.6 4 1.6

Note: numbers in parenthesis reflect the number of participants who had this feedback.
39 

Synopsis of Inventory Evaluation Comments

Time Requirement

• GSA Carbon Footprint Tool

Data input time estimates of one hour, two hours, four hours, and six hours were made. 

One comment mentions that data collection is the most time consuming part, especially 

when the software requires the data in a different format than they are collected in the 

park. Time requirements cover set-up to determine the process and group/site, and 

becoming familiar with tabs and navigation. Additionally, there is a time requirement to 

set up scenarios and sites, input data, review and understand the report, and edit for 

errors.

• CLIP Tool

Data input time estimates of two hours, three hours, four hours, and five to seven hours 

per district, depending on the level of familiarity with the tool and how many of the tabs 

are utilized. Evaluators mentioned difficulty navigating the data input, enabling macros, 

and saving the data. 

• ghg Track Tool

Comments varied widely. One describes the software as very difficult to navigate. 

Another says it took three hours to type the data into spreadsheets for batch upload, and 

more time and help from the developer to troubleshoot uploading issues. One comment 

noted that the tool was not intuitive and lacked a help section for the software. Additional 

time estimates for data entry of four and five hours per district to complete the upload not 

including entering vehicle data, which would need to be one at a time. 

What Was Not Liked

• GSA Carbon Footprint Tool

Requests were made for a tutorial on the tool, an option to input total usage, the ability to 

print from the Enterprise Portfolio, an option to enter propane as an input for Scope 1 

emissions, and making the action planning section easier to find. Issues included 

difficulty in estimating water usage, that the tool was not designed for a large national 

park with many buildings and meters, and lack of choices in the action planning section. 

• CLIP Tool

Glitches in the spreadsheet and issues finding the correct utility company were discussed. 

Two evaluators did not like the fact that data disappears once it is saved. The software 

would also need to be modified for a national forest. There were other comments noting 

there was no way to enter green power, difficulties entering wastewater data, difficulty 

saving data, the utility company options were not comprehensive, and unsuitable use of 

default data. 
40 

• ghg Track Tool 

Frustration was expressed with the data entry. Fleet usage, solid waste, and air travel 

were not included in the software. The software’s ability to be customized was discussed 

by the developer, but could not be evaluated. 

What Needed Improvement

• GSA Carbon Footprint Tool 

The action planning section needs improvement, including the ability to specific select 

sites for analysis, and the ability to analyze more improvements. The description of the 

tabs could be improved. 

• CLIP Tool

A troubleshooting guide, more guidance, increased variety of reports and more flexibility 

with the spreadsheet to accommodate data and requirements for different agencies were 

requested. Lack of clarity regarding the status of uploaded data, how to deal with in-park 

employee housing, and the “Age of Distribution” in the refrigerant worksheet were cited. 

• ghg Track Tool 

More information on how to complete the set-up screens, and an improved layout were 

requested. The tool needed increased flexibility on the type of data that can be reported 

and better translation of site data by the company (data sent to the company for upload 

were incorrectly entered). 

What Worked Well

• GSA Carbon Footprint Tool

The ease of uploading data and getting results, the help section, the ability to break the 

parks into campuses, and the ability to analyze individual sites were appreciated. Two 

evaluators liked the ROI calculators; the easy-to-read charts, the reports and the survey 

potential were good. 

• CLIP Tool

The help and references, the options to upload data, the quick links on all the tabs, the 

ability to input data as a “lump sum” to save time, the criteria air pollutant (CAP) feature, 

the fact that it is not Web-based, the totals summary, and the software’s simplicity were 

all cited as benefits to the software. 

• ghg Track Tool 

Batch uploads and having the developer set up the sites ahead of time. 

Additional Comments/Feedback

• GSA Carbon Footprint Tool 

The inventory tool works well, but the current action planning module is not very useful 

or functional. 
41 

• CLIP Tool 

Evaluators noted the tool is more appropriate for the NPS, it needs more “helper guides” 

throughout the tool, and the difficulty in following the logic of the spreadsheet. 

• ghg Track Tool 

Custom reports were a nice feature. Evaluators were only able to look at parts of the tool 

that were made available. There seemed to be some false data in the system indicating 

results for sites where no data had been entered. The tool did not provide much detail. 
42 

Appendix B – Action Planning Module Evaluation

Results and Comments

Table B-1. Action Planning Module Evaluation Resultsa

Criteria GSA Carbon Footprint Tool CLIP Tool

User friendliness

Challenging to navigate, but able to 

learn (1) Very user friendly/easy to navigate (2)

Technical assistance Yes (1) Unsure (2)

Input and navigation / 

decision making

Challenging to navigate, but able to 

learn (1)

Easy navigation, but not straightforward 

(1), very user friendly/easy to navigate (1)

Consistency with current 

action plans

Not consistent, would not 

recommend (1)

Not consistent, but adaptable (1), 

consistent with current reporting needs/ 

requirements (1)

Tangible results

Some of the results are useful and 

actionable (1)

Some of the results are useful and 

actionable (1), 

Useful results that can be put into action 

and monitored (1)

Cost Free (1) Free (2)

Will help with mitigation 

efforts Unsure (1) Unsure (2)

Feedback on using tool 

again 1–excellent, 5–would not use again

User 

friendliness/navigation 4 1, 2

Data input 4 1, 2

Results 4 1, 3

Action planning 4 3, 2 a The ghgTrack tool is not included as the teams did not have access to any action planning functionality for the tool, 

and thus, were not able to assess it.
43 

Table B-2. Action Planning Evaluation Comments

Comments GSA Carbon Footprint Tool CLIP Tool

What Did 

You Not 

Like?

Hard to find action planning section. 

Not a lot to choose from.

Apparently need to select sites in a 

different part of the tool in order to 

invoke the action planning part.

Don't understand the carbon footprint

map module.

The last time I pulled it up, it opened as a 

spreadsheet.... Not sure what happened 

there.

Other actions (not covered by available 

Drop-downs) either need a lot of research

to determine effects or people may have 

a tendency not to bother with them.

Prefer a lot more drop-downs of potential 

actions that could be taken.

What Do You 

Feel Needs 

Improvement?

Needs functional action planning section.

Select dashboard slider subjects for 

things that are more realistic or useful or

where changes in the factor produce 

significant or tangible results—replace 

lighting with CFL or LED or other; 

install motion sensor light switches; 

replace different kinds of appliances with 

low-energy models; changes in fleet, for 

example. 

Select sites to be analyzed in the action 

planning module.

Would like to be able to go back and 

forth between the two different modules.

Prefer to have the tabs in the upper right 

corner of the spreadsheet take the same 

place in each sheet. ("Next Sheet," 

“Previous Sheet," "Save" etc., be in same 

location, so when you flip from sheet to 

sheet you don't have to notice where your 

cursor is to keep clicking through.)

Not enough drop-downs in most of the 

action planning modules to capture all 

the actions you might want to take. 

Need more options to choose from in the 

energy management module instead of 

just changing lightbulbs, furnaces, and

boilers.

Would like to see how changes in 

thermostat settings (using lockable 

thermostats) would affect power for 

heating and cooling; would like to see 

how changes from electric heat to 

renewable energy affect things. 

Need a greater range of selections to 

choose from in the fleet section. I 

selected a gas truck to replace with 

something else and could not find any 

trucks in the drop-down to choose from. 

Need to be able to choose a truck, 4WD,

etc., rather than just cars. One always 

hopes that newer vehicles have better 

fuel economy.
44 

Comments GSA Carbon Footprint Tool CLIP Tool

What Do You 

Think 

Functioned 

Well?

Liked the concept of the tab for 

answering more questions to complete

information for some of the slider

subjects.

Like the ROI calculator.

I like that individual buildings or sites can

be analyzed.

I liked the "How to Use this Module" 

guide.

The export of data from Module 1 and 

import to Module 2 was easy and

effortless.

The action planning input sheets were 

easy to use. 

I liked the summary and the action plan 

document.

Additional 

Comments

I like the inventory tool, but the current 

action planning module is not very useful 

or functional, really.

I have used this program when I wanted

to see if proposed projects would be 

worthwhile. 

I like the spreadsheet aspect rather 

than the on-line aspect. It makes you 

feel this is your very own, and that it is 

easy and painless to complete and 

update.

Because data are for the entire unit it does 

require a companion spreadsheet that 

holds all the individual site data and 

totals.

A potential enhancement might have an 

option to input sites or districts 

individually, with the program compiling 

all the data and each district being able 

to manage their own data and do their 

own action planning. 

Though the data are compiled per unit 

(forest, park, etc.) individual actions can 

be site specific. I thought this action 

planning tool had a lot to offer.

I did not personally try to contact the 

CLIP tool people with questions, so I do 

not have any comments on ease of 

receiving help.
45 

Appendix C – Data Collection Forms
46 

Table C-1. Automated Data Collection Spreadsheet
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52