Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

British Columbia's 'carbon neutral government' mandate : influence on infrastructure decisions Lau, Kim Yang 2013

You don't seem to have a PDF reader installed, try download the pdf

Item Metadata

Download

Media
24-ubc_2013_fall_lau_kim.pdf [ 1.38MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 24-1.0058462.json
JSON-LD: 24-1.0058462-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 24-1.0058462-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 24-1.0058462-rdf.json
Turtle: 24-1.0058462-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 24-1.0058462-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 24-1.0058462-source.json
Full Text
24-1.0058462-fulltext.txt
Citation
24-1.0058462.ris

Full Text

BRITISH	 ?COLUMBIA?S	 ??CARBON	 ?NEUTRAL	 ?GOVERNMENT?	 ?MANDATE	 ??	 ?INFLUENCE	 ?ON	 ?INFRASTRUCTURE	 ?DECISIONS	 ?	 ?	 ?by	 ?	 ?KIM	 ?YANG	 ?LAU	 ?B.A.,	 ?Oxford	 ?University,	 ?1987	 ?	 ?A	 ?THESIS	 ?SUBMITTED	 ?IN	 ?PARTIAL	 ?FULFILLMENT	 ?OF	 ?THE	 ?REQUIREMENTS	 ?FOR	 ?THE	 ?DEGREE	 ?OF	 ?	 ?MASTER	 ?OF	 ?ARTS	 ?in	 ?THE	 ?FACULTY	 ?OF	 ?GRADUATE	 ?AND	 ?POSTDOCTORAL	 ?STUDIES	 ?(Resource	 ?Management	 ?and	 ?Environmental	 ?Studies)	 ?	 ?THE	 ?UNIVERSITY	 ?OF	 ?BRITISH	 ?COLUMBIA	 ?(Vancouver)	 ?	 ?October	 ?2013	 ?	 ??	 ?Kim	 ?Yang	 ?Lau,	 ?2013	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? ii	 ?Abstract	 ?The	 ? ?carbon	 ? neutral	 ? government?	 ?mandate	 ? in	 ? British	 ? Columbia	 ? offers	 ? an	 ? excellent	 ?opportunity	 ? to	 ? study	 ?whether	 ? requiring	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? organizations	 ? to	 ? be	 ? ?carbon	 ?neutral?	 ? is	 ? an	 ? effective	 ? policy	 ? within	 ? an	 ? overall	 ? strategy	 ? to	 ? drastically	 ? reduce	 ?greenhouse	 ?gas	 ?emissions.	 ?While	 ?many	 ?have	 ?criticized	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?offsets	 ?to	 ?achieve	 ??carbon	 ?neutrality?	 ?and	 ?channeling	 ?of	 ?public	 ?funds	 ?to	 ?the	 ?private	 ?sector,	 ?others	 ?have	 ?pointed	 ?out	 ?that	 ?the	 ?mandate	 ?has	 ?forced	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?organizations	 ?to	 ?measure	 ?and	 ?manage	 ? their	 ? greenhouse	 ? gas	 ? emissions,	 ? and	 ? incentivized	 ? them	 ? to	 ? proceed	 ? with	 ?infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? significantly	 ? reduced	 ? these	 ? emissions.	 ? Using	 ? a	 ? mixed	 ?methods	 ? case	 ? study	 ? approach,	 ? four	 ? post-??secondary	 ? educational	 ? institutions	 ? in	 ? the	 ?Greater	 ?Vancouver	 ?region	 ?were	 ?selected,	 ?to	 ?investigate	 ?whether	 ?the	 ??carbon	 ?neutral	 ?government?	 ?mandate	 ?has	 ?influenced	 ?their	 ?decisions	 ?on	 ?infrastructure	 ?investments	 ?that	 ?would	 ? significantly	 ? reduce	 ? these	 ? organizations?	 ? emissions.	 ? Through	 ? analyzing	 ?data	 ?on	 ?greenhouse	 ?gas	 ?emissions,	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?expert	 ?interviews,	 ?this	 ?study	 ? provides	 ? a	 ? better	 ? understanding	 ? of	 ? the	 ? factors	 ? that	 ? motivate	 ? public	 ? sector	 ?organizations	 ? to	 ? take	 ? action	 ? to	 ? drastically	 ? reduce	 ? their	 ? greenhouse	 ? gas	 ? emissions,	 ?including	 ?the	 ?need	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?adequate	 ?resources	 ?and	 ?support	 ?mechanisms	 ?that	 ?will	 ?enable	 ?them	 ?to	 ?act	 ?so	 ?as	 ?to	 ?achieve	 ?the	 ?best	 ?possible	 ?policy	 ?outcome.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? iii	 ?Preface	 ?This	 ?research	 ?was	 ?completed	 ?by	 ?Kim	 ?Yang	 ?Lau	 ?in	 ?part	 ?to	 ?fulfill	 ?the	 ?requirements	 ?of	 ?the	 ? Master	 ? of	 ? Arts	 ? degree	 ? at	 ? the	 ? Institute	 ? for	 ? Resources,	 ? Environment	 ? and	 ?Sustainability.	 ?The	 ?document	 ?analysis,	 ?expert	 ?interviews,	 ?transcription,	 ?analysis,	 ?and	 ?writing	 ?were	 ?all	 ? completed	 ?by	 ?Kim	 ?Yang	 ?Lau.	 ?The	 ?scope	 ?and	 ?methodology	 ? for	 ? this	 ?research	 ?were	 ?developed	 ?under	 ? the	 ?guidance	 ?of	 ? the	 ?Supervisory	 ?Committee.	 ?Some	 ?sections	 ?of	 ?Chapters	 ?2	 ?and	 ?6	 ?are	 ?based	 ?on	 ?research	 ?completed	 ?earlier	 ?by	 ?the	 ?author	 ?for	 ? the	 ?Pacific	 ? Institute	 ? for	 ?Climate	 ? Solutions	 ? and	 ?published	 ?as	 ? a	 ?White	 ?Paper	 ? and	 ?two	 ?Briefing	 ?Notes.	 ?This	 ?research	 ?project	 ?was	 ?approved	 ?by	 ?the	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?Behavioural	 ?Research	 ?Ethics	 ?Board,	 ?certificate	 ?number	 ?H10-??02519. 	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? iv	 ?Table	 ?of	 ?Contents	 ?	 ?Abstract	 ?.......................................................................................................................................	 ?ii	 ?Preface	 ?.......................................................................................................................................	 ?iii	 ?Table	 ?of	 ?Contents	 ?....................................................................................................................	 ?iv	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Tables	 ?............................................................................................................................	 ?ix	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Figures	 ?............................................................................................................................	 ?x	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Abbreviations	 ?...........................................................................................................	 ?xii	 ?Acknowledgements	 ?...............................................................................................................	 ?xv	 ?1.	 ? Introduction	 ?......................................................................................................................	 ?1	 ?1.1	 ? British	 ?Columbia?s	 ?Experiment	 ?................................................................................................................	 ?1	 ?1.2	 ? Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government	 ?.....................................................................................................................	 ?3	 ?1.3	 ? Differential	 ?Performance	 ?of	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?Organizations	 ?.............................................................	 ?6	 ?1.4	 ? Objectives	 ?of	 ?Study	 ?........................................................................................................................................	 ?7	 ?1.5	 ? Structure	 ?of	 ?Thesis	 ?........................................................................................................................................	 ?8	 ?2.	 ? Literature	 ?Review	 ?.........................................................................................................	 ?10	 ?2.1	 ? Introduction	 ?..................................................................................................................................................	 ?10	 ?2.2	 ? An	 ?Organizational	 ?Perspective	 ?of	 ?Climate	 ?Change	 ?Action	 ?.........................................................	 ?11	 ?2.2.1	 ? Importance	 ?of	 ?Organizations	 ?..............................................................................................................	 ?11	 ?2.2.2	 ? Public	 ?Sector	 ?Organizations	 ?................................................................................................................	 ?12	 ?2.2.3	 ? Transformative	 ?Changes	 ?Needed	 ?......................................................................................................	 ?13	 ?2.2.4	 ? Organizational	 ?Efforts	 ?...........................................................................................................................	 ?14	 ?2.2.5	 ? Decision-??Making	 ?.......................................................................................................................................	 ?16	 ?2.2.6	 ? Change	 ?Management	 ?.............................................................................................................................	 ?20	 ?	 ? v	 ?2.3	 ? Environmental	 ?Intervention	 ?Approaches	 ?.........................................................................................	 ?22	 ?2.3.1	 ? Introduction	 ?...............................................................................................................................................	 ?22	 ?2.3.2	 ? Command	 ?and	 ?Control	 ?Approach	 ?.....................................................................................................	 ?23	 ?2.3.3	 ? Market-??Based	 ?Approach	 ?.......................................................................................................................	 ?25	 ?2.3.4	 ? Management-??Based	 ?Intervention	 ?.....................................................................................................	 ?26	 ?2.3.5	 ? Voluntary	 ?Approaches	 ?...........................................................................................................................	 ?28	 ?2.3.6	 ? Regulation	 ?of	 ?Government	 ?...................................................................................................................	 ?29	 ?2.3.7	 ? National	 ?Environmental	 ?Policy	 ?Act	 ?(NEPA)	 ?.................................................................................	 ?30	 ?2.3.8	 ? Unfunded	 ?Mandates	 ?................................................................................................................................	 ?34	 ?2.3.9	 ? Reflection	 ?.....................................................................................................................................................	 ?36	 ?2.4	 ? Boundaries	 ?.....................................................................................................................................................	 ?38	 ?2.5	 ? Summary	 ?.........................................................................................................................................................	 ?42	 ?2.6	 ? Observations	 ?.................................................................................................................................................	 ?43	 ?3.	 ? Methodology	 ?...................................................................................................................	 ?46	 ?3.1	 ? Introduction	 ?..................................................................................................................................................	 ?46	 ?3.2	 ? Overall	 ?Approach	 ?........................................................................................................................................	 ?46	 ?3.3	 ? Research	 ?Questions	 ?....................................................................................................................................	 ?48	 ?3.4	 ? Selection	 ?of	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?Organizations	 ?...............................................................................................	 ?50	 ?3.4.1	 ? Selection	 ?Criteria	 ?......................................................................................................................................	 ?50	 ?3.4.2	 ? Profile	 ?of	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?Organizations	 ?.................................................................................................	 ?52	 ?3.4.3	 ? Physical	 ?Infrastructure	 ?..........................................................................................................................	 ?54	 ?3.5	 ? Document	 ?Analysis	 ?.....................................................................................................................................	 ?55	 ?3.6	 ? Expert	 ?Interviews	 ?.......................................................................................................................................	 ?57	 ?3.6.1	 ? Selection	 ?of	 ?Interviewees	 ?......................................................................................................................	 ?57	 ?3.6.2	 ? Interview	 ?Protocol	 ?...................................................................................................................................	 ?59	 ?	 ? vi	 ?4.	 ? Document	 ?Analysis	 ?.......................................................................................................	 ?60	 ?4.1	 ? Introduction	 ?..................................................................................................................................................	 ?60	 ?4.2	 ? Actions	 ?Taken	 ?...............................................................................................................................................	 ?61	 ?4.2.1	 ? The	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?......................................................................................................................................	 ?61	 ?4.2.2	 ? New	 ?Capital	 ?Funding	 ?..............................................................................................................................	 ?63	 ?4.2.3	 ? Learning	 ?.......................................................................................................................................................	 ?65	 ?4.2.4	 ? The	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?(UBC)	 ?.....................................................................................	 ?66	 ?4.2.5	 ? Simon	 ?Fraser	 ?University	 ?(SFU)	 ?...........................................................................................................	 ?68	 ?4.2.6	 ? Douglas	 ?College	 ?(DO)	 ?.............................................................................................................................	 ?70	 ?4.2.7	 ? Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ?(VCC)	 ?.............................................................................................	 ?70	 ?4.3	 ? Summary	 ?of	 ?Actions	 ?Taken	 ?.....................................................................................................................	 ?72	 ?4.4	 ? Emissions	 ?Data	 ?.............................................................................................................................................	 ?73	 ?4.4.1	 ? Introduction	 ?...............................................................................................................................................	 ?73	 ?4.4.2	 ? Public	 ?Sector	 ?Total	 ?Emissions	 ?and	 ?Offsets	 ?....................................................................................	 ?74	 ?4.4.3	 ? Sectoral	 ?Comparison	 ?of	 ?Emissions	 ?and	 ?Offsets	 ?...........................................................................	 ?77	 ?4.4.4	 ? Post-??Secondary	 ?Institutions	 ?................................................................................................................	 ?80	 ?4.4.5	 ? Case	 ?Study	 ?PSOs	 ?........................................................................................................................................	 ?82	 ?4.5	 ? Energy	 ?Consumption	 ?Data	 ?......................................................................................................................	 ?85	 ?4.5.1	 ? Introduction	 ?...............................................................................................................................................	 ?85	 ?4.5.2	 ? The	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?..................................................................................................	 ?85	 ?4.5.3	 ? Simon	 ?Fraser	 ?University	 ?........................................................................................................................	 ?92	 ?4.6	 ? Summary	 ?of	 ?Quantitative	 ?Analysis	 ?......................................................................................................	 ?98	 ?5.	 ? Expert	 ?Interviews	 ?.......................................................................................................	 ?101	 ?5.1	 ? Introduction	 ?................................................................................................................................................	 ?101	 ?5.2	 ? Actions	 ?Taken	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Mandate	 ?.................................................................................................	 ?103	 ?	 ? vii	 ?5.3	 ? Changes	 ?since	 ?the	 ?Mandate	 ?...................................................................................................................	 ?105	 ?5.4	 ? Decisions	 ?on	 ?Infrastructure	 ?Projects	 ?................................................................................................	 ?109	 ?5.5	 ? Major	 ?Constraints	 ?......................................................................................................................................	 ?113	 ?5.6	 ? Resources	 ?and	 ?Support	 ?Mechanisms	 ?................................................................................................	 ?115	 ?5.7	 ? Innovations	 ?and	 ?Learning	 ?.....................................................................................................................	 ?117	 ?5.8	 ? Others	 ?.............................................................................................................................................................	 ?121	 ?5.9	 ? Observations	 ?...............................................................................................................................................	 ?121	 ?6.	 ? Discussion	 ?.....................................................................................................................	 ?124	 ?6.1	 ? Introduction	 ?................................................................................................................................................	 ?124	 ?6.2	 ? Propositions	 ?Tested	 ?.................................................................................................................................	 ?124	 ?6.2.1	 ? Proposition	 ?1	 ?...........................................................................................................................................	 ?124	 ?6.2.2	 ? Proposition	 ?2	 ?...........................................................................................................................................	 ?126	 ?6.2.3	 ? Proposition	 ?3	 ?...........................................................................................................................................	 ?128	 ?6.3	 ? Research	 ?Question	 ?1	 ?................................................................................................................................	 ?130	 ?6.4	 ? Research	 ?Question	 ?2	 ?................................................................................................................................	 ?133	 ?6.5	 ? The	 ?Boundary	 ?Question	 ?..........................................................................................................................	 ?135	 ?6.5.1	 ? Expanding	 ?the	 ?Boundary	 ?...................................................................................................................	 ?135	 ?6.5.2	 ? Business	 ?Travel	 ?Emissions	 ?.................................................................................................................	 ?135	 ?6.5.3	 ? The	 ?Case	 ?of	 ?The	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?.......................................................................	 ?137	 ?6.5.4	 ? Cost	 ?of	 ?Expanding	 ?Mandate	 ?Coverage	 ?.........................................................................................	 ?142	 ?6.6	 ? Limitations	 ?...................................................................................................................................................	 ?143	 ?6.6.1	 ? Effect	 ?and	 ?Attribution	 ?.........................................................................................................................	 ?143	 ?6.6.2	 ? Small	 ?Sample	 ?Size	 ?.................................................................................................................................	 ?145	 ?6.6.3	 ? Short	 ?Time	 ?Period	 ?.................................................................................................................................	 ?146	 ?6.6.4	 ? Potential	 ?Bias	 ?and	 ?Self-??Selection	 ?...................................................................................................	 ?146	 ?	 ? viii	 ?7.	 ? Conclusion	 ?.....................................................................................................................	 ?148	 ?7.1	 ? Effectiveness	 ?of	 ?CNG	 ?Mandate	 ?.............................................................................................................	 ?148	 ?7.2	 ? Potential	 ?Applications	 ?and	 ?Significance	 ?of	 ?Research	 ?.................................................................	 ?149	 ?7.3	 ? Policy	 ?Recommendations	 ?......................................................................................................................	 ?150	 ?7.3.1	 ? Provision	 ?of	 ?Funds	 ?for	 ?Infrastructure	 ?..........................................................................................	 ?150	 ?7.3.2	 ? Expansion	 ?of	 ?Mandate	 ?Coverage	 ?....................................................................................................	 ?151	 ?7.3.3	 ? Expansion	 ?of	 ?Learning	 ?........................................................................................................................	 ?152	 ?7.4	 ? Potential	 ?Future	 ?Research	 ?.....................................................................................................................	 ?152	 ?Bibliography	 ?.........................................................................................................................	 ?155	 ?Appendices	 ?............................................................................................................................	 ?169	 ?Appendix	 ?A:	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Documents	 ?Reviewed	 ?for	 ?Document	 ?Analysis	 ?.................................................	 ?169	 ?Appendix	 ?B:	 ?Summary	 ?of	 ?Climate	 ?Action	 ?...................................................................................................	 ?173	 ?Appendix	 ?C:	 ?UBC-??Vancouver	 ?Energy	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?Data	 ?..............................................................................	 ?194	 ?Appendix	 ?D:	 ?SFU	 ?Energy	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?Data	 ?......................................................................................................	 ?195	 ?Appendix	 ?E:	 ?Letter	 ?of	 ?Initial	 ?Contact	 ?............................................................................................................	 ?196	 ?Appendix	 ?F:	 ?Consent	 ?Form	 ?...............................................................................................................................	 ?198	 ?Appendix	 ?G:	 ?Interview	 ?Protocol	 ?.....................................................................................................................	 ?200	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? ix	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Tables	 ?Table	 ?3.1:	 ?Brief	 ?Profile	 ?of	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?Organizations	 ?................................................	 ?53	 ?Table	 ?3.2:	 ?Preliminary	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Interviewees	 ?................................................................	 ?58	 ?Table	 ?4.1:	 ?BC	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?........................................	 ?75	 ?Table	 ?4.2:	 ?BC	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?GHG	 ?Offsets	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?..............................................	 ?76	 ?Table	 ?4.3:	 ?Total	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?by	 ?Sector	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?..........................................	 ?78	 ?Table	 ?4.4:	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?by	 ?Sector	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?................................................	 ?79	 ?Table	 ?4.5:	 ?Quantity	 ?of	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?by	 ?BC	 ?Post-??Secondary	 ?Institutions	 ?..	 ?81	 ?Table	 ?4.6:	 ?Comparison	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?in	 ?2007	 ?and	 ?2010	 ?...............................	 ?100	 ?Table	 ?4.7:	 ?Comparison	 ?of	 ?Enrolment	 ?and	 ?Population	 ?in	 ?2007	 ?and	 ?2010	 ?........	 ?100	 ?Table	 ?5.1:	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Interviewees	 ?.......................................................................................	 ?102	 ?Table	 ?6.1:	 ?UBC	 ?Vancouver	 ?Campus	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?Inventory	 ?2012	 ?.................	 ?138	 ?Table	 ?6.2:	 ?Comparison	 ?of	 ? Impacts	 ? from	 ?UBC	 ?Students	 ?Living	 ?Off-??Campus	 ?and	 ?On-??Campus	 ?............................................................................................................................	 ?142	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? x	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Figures	 ?Figure	 ?4.1:	 ?Total	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?by	 ?Sector	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?.........................................	 ?77	 ?Figure	 ?4.2:	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?by	 ?Sector	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?..............................................	 ?79	 ?Figure	 ?4.3:	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?by	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?PSOs	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?...........................	 ?83	 ?Figure	 ?4.4:	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ?by	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?PSOs	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?...	 ?84	 ?Figure	 ?4.5:	 ?UBC?s	 ?Electricity	 ?and	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Consumption	 ?2000	 ??	 ?2012	 ?.........	 ?86	 ?Figure	 ?4.6:	 ?UBC?s	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?Covered	 ?by	 ??Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government?	 ?and	 ?Fleet	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?2000	 ??	 ?2012	 ?...................................................................................	 ?87	 ?Figure	 ?4.7:	 ?UBC?s	 ?Total	 ?Floor	 ?Space	 ?and	 ?Enrolment	 ?2000	 ??	 ?2012	 ?........................	 ?88	 ?Figure	 ?4.8:	 ?UBC?s	 ?Electricity	 ?Consumption	 ?Intensity	 ?2006	 ??	 ?2012	 ?.......................	 ?89	 ?Figure	 ?4.9:	 ?UBC?s	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Consumption	 ?Intensity	 ?2006	 ??	 ?2012	 ?....................	 ?90	 ?Figure	 ?4.10:	 ?UBC?s	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?Intensity	 ?2000	 ??	 ?2012	 ?......................................	 ?91	 ?Figure	 ?4.11:	 ?SFU?s	 ?Electricity	 ?And	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Consumption	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?.......	 ?92	 ?Figure	 ? 4.12:	 ? SFU?s	 ? GHG	 ? Emissions	 ? Covered	 ? by	 ? ?Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Government?	 ?and	 ?Fleet	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?..........................................................................	 ?93	 ?Figure	 ?4.13:	 ?SFU?s	 ?Total	 ?Floor	 ?Space	 ?and	 ?Enrolment	 ?2005	 ??	 ?2012	 ?......................	 ?94	 ?Figure	 ?4.14:	 ?SFU?s	 ?Electricity	 ?Consumption	 ?Intensity	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?.....................	 ?95	 ?Figure	 ?4.15:	 ?SFU?s	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Consumption	 ?Intensity	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?..................	 ?96	 ?	 ? xi	 ?Figure	 ?4.16:	 ?SFU?s	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?Intensity	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?.......................................	 ?97	 ?Figure	 ?6.1:	 ?Core	 ?Government	 ?Business	 ?Travel	 ?Emissions	 ?2008	 ??	 ?2012	 ?...........	 ?137	 ?Figure	 ?6.2:	 ?UBC?s	 ?In-??Scope	 ?vs.	 ?Out-??Of-??Scope	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?......	 ?139	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? xii	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Abbreviations	 ?AASHE	 ? American	 ?Association	 ?for	 ?Sustainability	 ?in	 ?Higher	 ?Education	 ?BC	 ? British	 ?Columbia	 ?BCIT	 ? British	 ?Columbia	 ?Institute	 ?of	 ?Technology	 ?BRDF	 ? Bioenergy	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Demonstration	 ?Facility	 ?CAC	 ? Command	 ?and	 ?Control	 ?CAP	 ? Climate	 ?Action	 ?Plan	 ?CARIP	 ? Climate	 ?Action	 ?Revenue	 ?Incentive	 ?Programme	 ?CAS	 ? Climate	 ?Action	 ?Secretariat	 ?CEEI	 ? Community	 ?Energy	 ?and	 ?Emissions	 ?Inventory	 ?CFL	 ? Compact	 ?Fluorescent	 ?Lamp	 ?CIRS	 ? Centre	 ?for	 ?Interactive	 ?Research	 ?on	 ?Sustainability	 ?	 ?CNAR	 ? Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Action	 ?Report	 ?CNCP	 ? Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Capital	 ?Programme	 ?CNG	 ? Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government	 ?CNGR	 ? Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government	 ?Regulation	 ?CO2e	 ? Carbon	 ?Dioxide	 ?equivalent	 ?COP	 ? Continuous	 ?Optimization	 ?Programme	 ?DDC	 ? Direct	 ?Digital	 ?Control	 ?DO	 ? Douglas	 ?College	 ?EIS	 ? Environmental	 ?Impact	 ?Statement	 ?ESCO	 ? Energy	 ?Service	 ?Company	 ?FTE	 ? Full-??Time	 ?Equivalent	 ?	 ? xiii	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Abbreviations	 ?(Cont?d)	 ?	 ?GGRTA	 ? Greenhouse	 ?Gas	 ?Reduction	 ?Targets	 ?Act	 ?GHG	 ? Greenhouse	 ?Gas	 ?GJ	 ? Gigajoules	 ?GWh	 ? Gigawatt-??hour	 ?HVAC	 ? Heating,	 ?Ventilation,	 ?and	 ?Air	 ?Conditioning	 ?KIP	 ? Knowledge	 ?Infrastructure	 ?Programme	 ?kWh	 ? Kilowatt-??hour	 ?LED	 ? Light	 ?Emitting	 ?Diode	 ?LEED	 ? Leadership	 ?in	 ?Energy	 ?and	 ?Environmental	 ?Design	 ?MNECB	 ? Model	 ?National	 ?Energy	 ?Code	 ?for	 ?Buildings	 ?NEPA	 ? National	 ?Environmental	 ?Policy	 ?Act	 ?NRCan	 ? Natural	 ?Resources	 ?Canada	 ?PCT	 ? Pacific	 ?Carbon	 ?Trust	 ?PICS	 ? Pacific	 ?Institute	 ?for	 ?Climate	 ?Solutions	 ?PSECA	 ? Public	 ?Sector	 ?Energy	 ?Conservation	 ?Agreement	 ?PSO	 ? Public	 ?Sector	 ?Organization	 ?PVP	 ? Public	 ?Voluntary	 ?Programme	 ?REAP	 ? Residential	 ?Environmental	 ?Assessment	 ?Programme	 ?SFU	 ? Simon	 ?Fraser	 ?University	 ?UBC	 ? University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?UBC-??V	 ? University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?Vancouver	 ?Campus	 ?UNBC	 ? University	 ?of	 ?Northern	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?	 ? xiv	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Abbreviations	 ?(Cont?d)	 ?	 ?USI	 ? UBC	 ?Sustainability	 ?Initiative	 ?U.S.	 ? United	 ?States	 ?VCC	 ? Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? xv	 ?Acknowledgements	 ?I	 ? would	 ? like	 ? to	 ? thank	 ? my	 ? Thesis	 ? Supervisor	 ? Hadi	 ? Dowlatabadi	 ? and	 ? Supervisory	 ?Committee	 ?member	 ?Timothy	 ?McDaniels,	 ?my	 ?colleagues,	 ? faculty	 ?and	 ?administrative	 ?staff	 ? at	 ? the	 ? Institute	 ? for	 ? Resources,	 ? Environment	 ? and	 ? Sustainability.	 ? I	 ? am	 ? most	 ?grateful	 ? to	 ?my	 ? spouse,	 ? Alex	 ? Tan,	 ? for	 ? his	 ? unwavering	 ? belief	 ? in	 ?me,	 ? and	 ? continuous	 ?encouragement	 ?without	 ?which	 ?I	 ?would	 ?not	 ?have	 ?persevered	 ?to	 ?complete	 ?this	 ?study.	 ?I	 ?would	 ?also	 ?like	 ?to	 ?thank	 ?and	 ?acknowledge	 ?the	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?Faculty	 ?of	 ?Graduate	 ?and	 ?Postdoctoral	 ?Studies,	 ?the	 ?Social	 ?Sciences	 ?and	 ?Humanities	 ?Research	 ?Council,	 ? the	 ? Pacific	 ? Institute	 ? for	 ? Climate	 ? Solutions	 ? and	 ? the	 ? National	 ? Science	 ?Foundation	 ? (SES-??0949710)	 ? for	 ? their	 ? valuable	 ? financial	 ? support	 ? in	 ? completing	 ? this	 ?research. 	 ? 	 ?	 ? 1	 ?1.	 ? Introduction	 ?1.1	 ? British	 ?Columbia?s	 ?Experiment	 ?The	 ?government	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?(BC)	 ?launched	 ?an	 ?ambitious	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?plan	 ?in	 ?2007.	 ?Among	 ? the	 ?most	 ? challenging	 ?goals	 ? in	 ? this	 ?plan	 ? (Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ? 2008)	 ? are	 ? legislated	 ? targets	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? provincial	 ? greenhouse	 ? gas	 ? (GHG)	 ?emissions	 ? by	 ? 33%	 ? by	 ? 2020	 ? and	 ? 80%	 ? by	 ? 2050,	 ? from	 ? a	 ? baseline	 ? in	 ? 2007	 ? (British	 ?Columbia	 ? Government	 ? 2007).	 ? One	 ? of	 ? the	 ? tools	 ? in	 ? this	 ? plan	 ? is	 ? a	 ? revenue-??neutral	 ?carbon	 ?tax,	 ?which	 ?started	 ?from	 ?$10	 ?per	 ?tonne	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?dioxide	 ?equivalent	 ?(CO2e)	 ?in	 ?2008	 ?and	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?$5	 ?a	 ?year	 ?to	 ?reach	 ?$30	 ?per	 ?tonne	 ?CO2e	 ?in	 ?July	 ?2012.	 ?A	 ?second	 ?provision	 ?is	 ?a	 ?cap-??and-??trade	 ?system	 ?that	 ?was	 ?to	 ?be	 ?launched	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Western	 ?Climate	 ? Initiative,	 ? but	 ? further	 ? development	 ? and	 ? implementation	 ? of	 ? this	 ? tool	 ? in	 ? BC	 ?have	 ?been	 ?stalled	 ?for	 ?some	 ?time,	 ?despite	 ?California?s	 ?decision	 ?to	 ?proceed	 ?in	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?	 ?Another	 ?signature	 ?policy	 ?of	 ?BC?s	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?plan,	 ?which	 ?has	 ?not	 ?received	 ?as	 ?much	 ?international	 ? attention	 ? as	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax,	 ? is	 ? a	 ? commitment	 ? that	 ? provincial	 ?government	 ?operations	 ?would	 ?be	 ??carbon	 ?neutral?	 ?by	 ?2010.	 ?The	 ?government	 ?defines	 ?carbon	 ? neutrality	 ? as	 ? measuring	 ? its	 ? operational	 ? GHG	 ? emissions,	 ? reducing	 ? these	 ?where	 ? possible,	 ? offsetting	 ? the	 ? remainder	 ? to	 ? ensure	 ? net	 ? emissions	 ? are	 ? zero	 ? and	 ?demonstrating	 ? leadership	 ? through	 ?public	 ? reporting	 ? (Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2009).	 ? This	 ? ?carbon	 ? neutral	 ? government?	 ? (CNG)	 ? mandate	 ? is	 ? one	 ? of	 ? the	 ? most	 ?aggressive	 ? climate	 ? action	 ? targets,	 ? set	 ? so	 ? far,	 ? by	 ? a	 ? major	 ? jurisdiction	 ? in	 ? North	 ?America,	 ?and	 ?certainly	 ?among	 ?the	 ?earliest	 ?where	 ?substantial	 ?impacts,	 ?if	 ?any,	 ?can	 ?be	 ?observed.	 ?Its	 ?scale	 ?of	 ?involvement	 ?is	 ?large,	 ?covering	 ?more	 ?than	 ?150	 ?core	 ?government	 ?and	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? organizations	 ? (PSOs)	 ? with	 ? more	 ? than	 ? 7,000	 ? public	 ? buildings,	 ?including	 ? all	 ? post-??secondary	 ? educational	 ? institutions,	 ? health	 ? authorities,	 ? school	 ?districts	 ? and	 ? crown	 ? corporations.	 ? Moreover,	 ? the	 ? rapid	 ? passage	 ? of	 ? legislation	 ? and	 ?short	 ?timeframe	 ?given	 ?to	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?respond	 ?to	 ?this	 ?mandate	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?its	 ?	 ? 2	 ?launch,	 ? policy	 ? analysis	 ? on	 ? the	 ? mandate	 ? may	 ? not	 ? have	 ? been	 ? sufficiently	 ? rigorous,	 ?considering	 ?its	 ?potential	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?both	 ?the	 ?public	 ?and	 ?private	 ?sectors.	 ?	 ?This	 ? programme	 ? has	 ? also	 ? been	 ? extended	 ? to	 ? local	 ? governments	 ? in	 ? BC.	 ? While	 ? not	 ?mandatory,	 ?180	 ?out	 ?of	 ?188	 ?local	 ?governments	 ?have	 ?so	 ?far	 ?signed	 ?the	 ?Climate	 ?Action	 ?Charter	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013a).	 ?By	 ?committing	 ?to	 ?be	 ??carbon	 ?neutral?	 ?by	 ? 2012,	 ? these	 ? local	 ? governments	 ? would	 ? receive	 ? a	 ? grant	 ? equal	 ? to	 ? 100%	 ? of	 ? the	 ?carbon	 ? tax	 ?costs	 ? they	 ?have	 ?paid	 ? for	 ? their	 ?operations	 ? in	 ? the	 ?previous	 ?year,	 ? through	 ?the	 ? Climate	 ? Action	 ? Revenue	 ? Incentive	 ? Programme	 ? or	 ? CARIP	 ? (Ministry	 ? of	 ?Community,	 ? Sport	 ? &	 ? Cultural	 ? Development,	 ? B.C.	 ? 2013a).	 ? This	 ? commitment	 ? was	 ?subsequently	 ?relaxed,	 ?so	 ?that	 ?local	 ?governments	 ?can	 ?still	 ?receive	 ?the	 ?grant	 ?without	 ?being	 ? ?carbon	 ?neutral?	 ? from	 ?2012,	 ? as	 ? long	 ?as	 ? they	 ? commit	 ? to	 ? take	 ?actions	 ? towards	 ??carbon	 ?neutrality?	 ?and	 ??report	 ?publicly	 ?on	 ?their	 ?plan	 ?and	 ?progress	 ?toward	 ?meeting	 ?their	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?goals,	 ?including	 ?progress	 ?toward	 ?carbon	 ?neutrality?	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Community,	 ?Sport	 ?&	 ?Cultural	 ?Development,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013b).	 ?	 ?At	 ?the	 ?time	 ?of	 ?its	 ?launch	 ?in	 ?2007,	 ?BC?s	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?plan	 ?placed	 ?the	 ?province	 ?among	 ?a	 ?small	 ?group	 ?of	 ?leading	 ?jurisdictions	 ?that	 ?have	 ?committed	 ?to	 ?take	 ?action	 ?to	 ?address	 ?climate	 ? change,	 ? despite	 ? the	 ? absence	 ? of	 ? an	 ? international	 ? agreement	 ? on	 ? emissions	 ?reduction.	 ?Some	 ?4	 ?years	 ?after,	 ? there	 ?are	 ?encouraging	 ?signs	 ?that	 ? the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?has	 ?had	 ? some	 ? effect.	 ? Petroleum	 ? fuel	 ? consumption	 ?per	 ?capita	 ? in	 ?BC	 ?has	 ? dropped	 ? about	 ?15%,	 ?while	 ?for	 ?Canada	 ?as	 ?a	 ?whole,	 ?there	 ?was	 ?a	 ?1%	 ?increase	 ?(Elgie	 ?2012).	 ?Meanwhile,	 ?there	 ?appears	 ? to	 ?have	 ?been	 ? little	 ?negative	 ?effect	 ?on	 ?BC?s	 ?economy	 ?over	 ? the	 ?period,	 ?with	 ?BC	 ? growing	 ? slightly	 ?more	 ? than	 ?Canada	 ? as	 ? a	 ?whole	 ? in	 ? per	 ? capita	 ? terms	 ? (Elgie	 ?2012;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012c).	 ?Another	 ?study	 ?attributes	 ?the	 ?decline	 ?in	 ?motor	 ?gasoline	 ?demand	 ?largely	 ?to	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?(Rivers	 ?and	 ?Schaufele	 ?2013).	 ?While	 ?some	 ?point	 ?to	 ?these	 ?as	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?is	 ?working	 ?and	 ?is	 ?positive	 ?for	 ?BC,	 ?others	 ?are	 ?more	 ?cautious,	 ?pointing	 ?out	 ?that	 ?the	 ?study	 ?period	 ?is	 ?too	 ?short	 ?and	 ?more	 ?data	 ?is	 ?required	 ?to	 ?establish	 ?this	 ?as	 ?a	 ?trend.	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?these	 ?studies	 ?may	 ?not	 ?have	 ?	 ? 3	 ?dealt	 ?adequately	 ?with	 ?an	 ?alternative	 ?explanation	 ?for	 ?the	 ?decline	 ?in	 ?fuel	 ?sales	 ?in	 ?BC,	 ?which	 ?is	 ?that	 ?higher	 ?prices	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?may	 ?have	 ?encouraged	 ?more	 ?drivers	 ?to	 ?fill	 ?their	 ?tanks	 ?in	 ?neighbouring	 ?jurisdictions	 ?Washington	 ?and	 ?Alberta.	 ?	 ?In	 ?light	 ?of	 ?the	 ?above	 ?finding	 ?for	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?tax,	 ?a	 ?natural	 ?question	 ?to	 ?ask	 ?is	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?has	 ?similarly	 ?influenced	 ?fossil	 ?fuel	 ?consumption	 ?or	 ?energy	 ?use	 ?by	 ?PSOs,	 ?since	 ?PSOs	 ?have	 ?to	 ?pay	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?from	 ?July	 ?2008	 ?and,	 ?on	 ?top	 ?of	 ?that,	 ?buy	 ?offsets	 ? for	 ? their	 ? carbon	 ?emissions	 ? from	 ?2010	 ?onwards.	 ?Given	 ? the	 ?above	 ?backdrop,	 ?BC?s	 ? experiment	 ? in	 ? climate	 ? change	 ? action	 ?offers	 ? an	 ? excellent	 ? opportunity	 ? to	 ? study	 ?whether	 ?requiring	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?be	 ? ?carbon	 ?neutral?	 ? is	 ?an	 ?effective	 ?policy	 ? to	 ?bring	 ?about	 ?lower	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?organizations,	 ?within	 ?an	 ?overall	 ?strategy	 ?to	 ?drastically	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?the	 ?province.	 ?	 ?	 ?1.2	 ? Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government	 ?In	 ?the	 ?run-??up	 ?to	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?implementation	 ?deadline	 ?of	 ?2010,	 ?a	 ?report	 ?entitled	 ??Taking	 ?Action:	 ? British	 ? Columbia's	 ? Universities	 ? and	 ? Colleges	 ? Respond	 ? to	 ? the	 ? Greenhouse	 ? Gas	 ?Reduction	 ?Targets	 ?Act?	 ?was	 ?written	 ?on	 ?behalf	 ?of	 ?the	 ?BC	 ?Working	 ?Group	 ?and	 ?Network	 ?for	 ?Educational	 ?Sustainability.	 ?The	 ?authors	 ?interviewed	 ?staff	 ?at	 ?3	 ?government	 ?bodies	 ?and	 ?9	 ?post-??secondary	 ?institutions	 ? in	 ?various	 ?regions	 ?of	 ?BC,	 ? in	 ?an	 ?attempt	 ?to	 ?assess	 ?the	 ?progress	 ?of	 ?the	 ?organizations	 ?towards	 ?meeting	 ?the	 ?government?s	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?plan	 ?targets.	 ?The	 ?report	 ?concluded	 ?that	 ?while	 ?some	 ?progress	 ?has	 ?been	 ?made,	 ?post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? continue	 ? to	 ? face	 ? substantial	 ? barriers	 ? to	 ? achieving	 ?sustainability	 ?including	 ?bureaucratic	 ?inertia,	 ?a	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?money	 ?and	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?awareness	 ?and	 ? communication.	 ? The	 ? institutions	 ? interviewed	 ? said	 ? financing	 ? was	 ? the	 ? greatest	 ?challenge	 ? they	 ? face	 ? in	 ? implementing	 ? the	 ? Act	 ? and	 ? there	 ? was	 ? concern	 ? that	 ? without	 ?additional	 ?funding	 ?some	 ?institutions	 ?may	 ?be	 ?forced	 ?to	 ?make	 ?cuts	 ?in	 ?areas	 ?that	 ?could	 ?affect	 ?core	 ?programming	 ?(Webster	 ?and	 ?Moore	 ?2009).	 ?Since	 ?then,	 ?there	 ?has	 ?been	 ?no	 ?systematic	 ?independent	 ?assessment	 ?of	 ?impacts	 ?arising	 ?from	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ?at	 ?the	 ?	 ? 4	 ?organizational	 ?level.	 ?	 ?The	 ?government?s	 ?declaration	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?neutrality	 ?in	 ?2010	 ?was	 ?met	 ?with	 ?skepticism	 ?from	 ? several	 ? quarters.	 ? A	 ? report	 ? pointed	 ? out	 ? that	 ? a	 ? very	 ? large	 ? proportion	 ? of	 ? PSO?s	 ?total	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? is	 ?not	 ?covered	 ?under	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?(Lau	 ?and	 ?Dowlatabadi	 ?2011a).	 ?Moreover,	 ?despite	 ? the	 ?attempts	 ?by	 ?many	 ?PSOs	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? their	 ? energy	 ?use	 ?and	 ? emissions	 ? since	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? was	 ? first	 ? announced	 ? in	 ? late	 ? 2007,	 ? carbon	 ?neutrality	 ?was	 ?only	 ?achieved	 ?in	 ?2010	 ?through	 ?2012	 ?primarily	 ?through	 ?the	 ?purchase	 ?of	 ? offsets	 ? from	 ?emission-??reduction	 ?projects	 ?within	 ?BC.	 ?A	 ? common	 ? criticism	 ?of	 ? this	 ?approach	 ?is	 ?that	 ?it	 ?allows	 ?organizations	 ?(or	 ?countries)	 ?to	 ?avoid	 ?making	 ?real	 ?changes	 ?to	 ?their	 ?own	 ?operations	 ?by	 ?off-??loading	 ?services	 ?or	 ?by	 ?buying	 ?offsets.	 ??In	 ?short,	 ?while	 ?some	 ? types	 ? of	 ? offsets	 ? can	 ? act	 ? as	 ? an	 ? effective	 ? means	 ? to	 ? address	 ? greenhouse	 ? gas	 ?emissions,	 ?they	 ?should	 ?not	 ?be	 ?seen	 ?as	 ?a	 ?license	 ?to	 ?pollute	 ?or	 ?as	 ?a	 ?means	 ?to	 ?continue	 ?unsustainable	 ?practices.	 ?Too	 ?often,	 ?offsets	 ?are	 ?used	 ?by	 ?governments	 ?and	 ?businesses	 ?as	 ? smokescreens	 ? to	 ? distract	 ? people	 ? from	 ? the	 ? need	 ? to	 ? cut	 ? emissions.	 ? By	 ? diverting	 ?people?s	 ? funds	 ? and	 ? attention	 ? to	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? are	 ? unlikely	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? emissions	 ?significantly,	 ? some	 ? offset	 ? schemes	 ? could	 ? ultimately	 ? do	 ? more	 ? harm	 ? than	 ? good.?	 ?(Downie	 ?2007)	 ?	 ?Not	 ? surprisingly,	 ? some	 ? critics	 ? have	 ?questioned	 ?whether	 ? offsets	 ? represent	 ? real	 ? and	 ??additional?	 ?emission	 ?reductions,	 ?with	 ?one	 ?report	 ?even	 ?calling	 ?for	 ?BC	 ?to	 ?abandon	 ?its	 ?goal	 ?of	 ?a	 ?carbon	 ?neutral	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?(Jaccard	 ?and	 ?Griffin	 ?2011).	 ?It	 ?should	 ?be	 ?noted	 ?here	 ? that	 ?with	 ?regard	 ? to	 ? the	 ?controversy	 ?over	 ? the	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ? carbon	 ?offsets,	 ? there	 ?are	 ?already	 ?many	 ?studies	 ?that	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?the	 ?challenges	 ?of	 ?determining	 ?additionality,	 ?verification	 ? and	 ? permanence	 ? of	 ? GHG	 ? reductions,	 ? among	 ? others	 ? (Mason	 ? and	 ?Plantinga	 ?2013;	 ?Murray,	 ?Sohngen,	 ?and	 ?Ross	 ?2007;	 ?Van	 ?Kooten,	 ?Bogle,	 ?and	 ?de	 ?Vries	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?	 ? 5	 ?Other	 ?critics	 ?have	 ?argued	 ?that	 ?the	 ?purchase	 ?of	 ?offsets	 ?siphons	 ?funds	 ?away	 ?from	 ?cash-??strapped	 ? public	 ? agencies	 ? in	 ? BC	 ? to	 ? the	 ? private	 ? sector	 ? (Simpson	 ? 2011),	 ? even	 ? to	 ? the	 ?extent	 ?of	 ?reducing	 ?the	 ?ability	 ?of	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?invest	 ?in	 ?emission	 ?reduction	 ?projects	 ?or	 ?at	 ?the	 ? expense	 ? of	 ? service	 ? provision.	 ? Many	 ? critics	 ? have	 ? called	 ? for	 ? the	 ? scheme	 ? to	 ? be	 ?adjusted,	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?to	 ?allow	 ?funds	 ?to	 ?flow	 ?back	 ?to	 ?public	 ?bodies	 ??to	 ?create	 ?a	 ?base	 ?of	 ?low-??carbon	 ?public	 ?buildings?	 ?(Lee	 ?2011).	 ?These	 ?calls	 ?are	 ?being	 ?repeated	 ?every	 ?so	 ?often,	 ? as	 ? PSOs	 ? continue	 ? to	 ? face	 ? budgetary	 ? shortfalls	 ? and	 ? other	 ? cost	 ? pressures,	 ?despite	 ? the	 ? fact	 ? that	 ? the	 ? offset	 ? purchases	 ? account	 ? for	 ? less	 ? than	 ? 0.05%	 ? of	 ? the	 ? BC	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?annual	 ?budget.	 ?	 ?On	 ?the	 ?other	 ?hand,	 ?there	 ?is	 ?feedback	 ?from	 ?some	 ?PSOs	 ?that	 ?they	 ?are	 ?able	 ?to	 ?proceed	 ?with	 ?more	 ?GHG	 ?emission	 ?reduction	 ?projects	 ?because	 ?carbon	 ?pricing	 ? in	 ? the	 ? form	 ?of	 ?both	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? and	 ? offset	 ? purchases	 ? has	 ? tilted	 ? the	 ? balance	 ? in	 ? business	 ? case	 ?evaluations	 ?(Barrett	 ?2011)	 ?and	 ??the	 ?high	 ?carbon	 ?price	 ?has	 ? led	 ?to	 ?real	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?are	 ? reducing	 ? emissions?	 ? (Lee	 ? 2011).	 ? New	 ? government	 ? funding	 ? from	 ? the	 ? Public	 ?Sector	 ?Energy	 ?Conservation	 ?Agreement	 ? (PSECA),	 ? amounting	 ? to	 ?$75	 ?million	 ?over	 ?3	 ?years,	 ? has	 ? also	 ? helped	 ? to	 ? kick-??start	 ? some	 ? major	 ? projects	 ? in	 ? the	 ? public	 ? sector.	 ?Moreover,	 ?many	 ?PSOs	 ?are	 ?measuring	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?for	 ?the	 ?first	 ?time	 ?using	 ?the	 ?government-??developed	 ? software	 ? programme	 ? called	 ? SMARTTool,	 ? and	 ? are	 ?incentivized	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?these	 ?emissions	 ?(Barrett	 ?2011).	 ?	 ?	 ?It	 ? can	 ?be	 ?expected	 ? that	 ?while	 ? the	 ?direct	 ? footprint	 ?of	 ? the	 ?public	 ? sector	 ? is	 ? small,	 ? the	 ?mandate	 ? through	 ? both	 ? positive	 ? and	 ? negative	 ? spillover	 ? effects	 ?may	 ? generate	 ?more	 ?widespread	 ? consequences.	 ? Anecdotally,	 ? the	 ?mandate	 ?has	 ? spurred	 ? some	 ? consulting	 ?activities,	 ?increased	 ?demand	 ?for	 ?services	 ?in	 ?measurement	 ?and	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?GHG,	 ?as	 ?well	 ? as	 ? created	 ?a	 ?market	 ? for	 ?offsets	 ? for	 ? close	 ? to	 ?1	 ?million	 ? tonnes	 ?of	 ?CO2e	 ?per	 ?year	 ?through	 ?the	 ?Pacific	 ?Carbon	 ?Trust	 ?(PCT).	 ?By	 ?being	 ?an	 ?early	 ?mover,	 ?there	 ?could	 ?also	 ?be	 ?a	 ? potential	 ? positive	 ? spillover	 ? that	 ? the	 ? government	 ? will	 ? create	 ? a	 ? learning	 ?environment,	 ? increasing	 ?know-??how	 ?for	 ?GHG	 ?measurement,	 ?audit	 ?and	 ?mitigation	 ? in	 ?	 ? 6	 ?the	 ? province	 ? and	 ? reducing	 ? the	 ? cost	 ? of	 ?mitigation	 ? for	 ? other	 ? actors	 ? in	 ? the	 ? province.	 ?However,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?not	 ?clear	 ?how	 ?much	 ?this	 ?has	 ?translated	 ?into	 ?growth	 ?and	 ?jobs	 ?for	 ?BC?s	 ??green?	 ?economy,	 ?although	 ?some	 ?reports	 ?have	 ?painted	 ?relatively	 ?rosy	 ?pictures	 ?(Globe	 ?Foundation	 ?2010;	 ?KPMG	 ?LLP	 ?Canada	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?	 ?1.3	 ? Differential	 ?Performance	 ?of	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?Organizations	 ?During	 ?the	 ?first	 ?three	 ?years	 ?of	 ?declared	 ??carbon	 ?neutrality?,	 ?the	 ?quantity	 ?of	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ? the	 ? BC	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? that	 ? is	 ? covered	 ? by	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? showed	 ? a	 ? small	 ?increase	 ?overall.	 ?There	 ?were	 ?relatively	 ?large	 ?year-??to-??year	 ?fluctuations,	 ?probably	 ?due	 ?to	 ?variations	 ?in	 ?the	 ?weather	 ?over	 ?this	 ?period.	 ?There	 ?were	 ?also	 ?sectoral	 ?differences,	 ?for	 ?example	 ?between	 ?core	 ?government	 ?ministries	 ?and	 ?agencies	 ?and	 ?post-??secondary	 ?institutions,	 ?which	 ?are	 ?examined	 ?in	 ?greater	 ?detail	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?4.	 ?	 ?	 ?Among	 ? the	 ? group	 ? of	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions,	 ? emissions	 ? performance	 ? between	 ?2010	 ?and	 ?2012	 ?is	 ?varied.	 ?While	 ?some	 ?recorded	 ?increases	 ?of	 ?close	 ?to	 ?20%,	 ?a	 ?few	 ?had	 ?only	 ? single-??digit	 ? increases	 ? and	 ? others	 ? even	 ? a	 ? decrease	 ? of	 ? 10	 ? to	 ? 20%	 ? in	 ? their	 ?emissions.	 ?There	 ?could	 ?be	 ?a	 ?number	 ?of	 ?explanations	 ?for	 ?the	 ?differences	 ?in	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ? these	 ? institutions,	 ? ranging	 ? from	 ? variability	 ? of	 ? weather	 ? conditions	 ? in	 ? different	 ?regions	 ? of	 ? BC	 ? during	 ? this	 ? short	 ? period	 ? of	 ? time,	 ? expanding	 ? enrolments	 ? and	 ? more	 ?facilities	 ? being	 ? brought	 ? on-??stream,	 ? and	 ? past	 ? efforts	 ? of	 ? pursuing	 ? energy	 ? efficiency	 ?retrofits	 ?or	 ?new	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?had	 ?already	 ?lowered	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?By	 ?examining	 ? closely	 ? the	 ? emissions	 ? performance	 ? of	 ? a	 ? selected	 ? number	 ? of	 ? PSOs,	 ? and	 ?gaining	 ? a	 ? deeper	 ? understanding	 ? of	 ?why	 ? they	 ? differed,	 ? it	 ? is	 ? possible	 ? to	 ? draw	 ? some	 ?lessons	 ? that	 ? could	 ? help	 ? other	 ? organizations	 ? to	 ? more	 ? effectively	 ? reduce	 ? their	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ? 7	 ?1.4	 ? Objectives	 ?of	 ?Study	 ?For	 ? the	 ? large	 ? majority	 ? of	 ? environmental	 ? and	 ? climate	 ? policies,	 ? the	 ? bulk	 ? of	 ? policy	 ?analysis	 ? takes	 ? place	 ? before	 ? decisions	 ? are	 ?made,	 ? but	 ? relatively	 ? little	 ? analysis	 ? takes	 ?place	 ? after	 ? decisions	 ? have	 ? been	 ? made	 ? and	 ? implemented.	 ? However,	 ? retrospective	 ?evaluation	 ? of	 ? the	 ? performance	 ? of	 ? a	 ? policy	 ? or	 ? mandate	 ? can	 ? identify	 ? whether	 ? it	 ? is	 ?serving	 ? its	 ? purpose	 ? and	 ? ascertain	 ? what	 ? outcomes	 ? have	 ? actually	 ? been	 ? achieved,	 ?which	 ?is	 ?useful	 ?to	 ?inform	 ?policy	 ?deliberations	 ?and	 ?help	 ?move	 ?decision-??making	 ?closer	 ?to	 ?an	 ?evidence-??based	 ?practice	 ?(Bennear	 ?and	 ?Coglianese	 ?2005).	 ? It	 ?can	 ?also	 ?consider	 ?whether	 ? there	 ? are	 ? other	 ? effects,	 ? particularly	 ? those	 ? that	 ? are	 ? unintended	 ? or	 ?undesirable.	 ? With	 ? information	 ? from	 ? retrospective	 ? evaluations	 ? of	 ? policies,	 ?policymakers	 ?will	 ? be	 ? better	 ? able	 ? to	 ? determine	 ?what	 ? policies	 ? to	 ? adopt	 ? and	 ? how	 ? to	 ?design	 ?them	 ?better	 ?in	 ?the	 ?future.	 ?It	 ?becomes	 ?a	 ?vital	 ?part	 ?of	 ?an	 ?adaptive	 ?management	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?environmental	 ?or	 ?climate	 ?policy	 ?(Holling	 ?1978).	 ?	 ?It	 ?is	 ?therefore	 ?an	 ?objective	 ?of	 ?this	 ?study	 ?to	 ?evaluate	 ?the	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?on	 ? PSOs	 ? since	 ? its	 ? announcement	 ? in	 ? 2007.	 ? Besides	 ? the	 ? impact	 ? on	 ? actual	 ? GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?could	 ?also	 ?have	 ?had	 ?an	 ?influence	 ?on	 ?major	 ?decisions	 ?for	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?would	 ?significantly	 ?reduce	 ?the	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ?PSOs	 ?in	 ?future	 ?years,	 ?or	 ?motivate	 ?other	 ? initiatives	 ?and	 ?behavioural	 ?changes	 ?that	 ?contribute	 ?to	 ?reducing	 ?the	 ?demand	 ?for	 ?energy	 ?and	 ?hence	 ?resulting	 ?in	 ?lower	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?This	 ?study	 ?would	 ?also	 ?seek	 ?to	 ?find	 ?out	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?has	 ?mitigated	 ?any	 ?of	 ? the	 ?major	 ? constraints	 ? identified	 ? in	 ? previous	 ? studies,	 ? especially	 ? the	 ? study	 ? of	 ? BC	 ?institutions	 ?(Webster	 ?and	 ?Moore	 ?2009),	 ?and	 ?whether	 ?support	 ?mechanisms	 ?provided	 ?by	 ? the	 ? provincial	 ? government	 ? or	 ? other	 ? government	 ? agencies	 ? have	 ? helped	 ?PSOs	 ? to	 ?overcome	 ? some	 ? of	 ? the	 ? constraints	 ? hindering	 ? emissions	 ? reduction	 ? projects	 ? and	 ?programmes.	 ?For	 ?the	 ?purpose	 ?of	 ?this	 ?study,	 ?the	 ?effectiveness	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?is	 ?	 ? 8	 ?indicated	 ? by	 ? a	 ? positive	 ? influence	 ? on	 ? decision-??making	 ? for	 ? emission	 ? reduction	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?a	 ?sustained	 ?reduction	 ?in	 ?PSO?s	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?By	 ? bringing	 ? theories	 ? of	 ? decision-??making	 ? and	 ?management	 ? science	 ? to	 ? bear	 ? on	 ? real	 ?issues	 ? faced	 ?by	 ?different	 ?PSOs,	 ? and	 ?drawing	 ? common	 ? lessons	 ? from	 ? these	 ?different	 ?decision	 ?contexts,	 ?the	 ?study	 ?will	 ?help	 ?to	 ?improve	 ?our	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?the	 ?decision	 ?processes	 ?and	 ?trade-??offs	 ?faced	 ?by	 ?these	 ?PSOs.	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?by	 ?focusing	 ?attention	 ?on	 ?whether	 ? this	 ?mandate	 ?has	 ? influenced	 ?decisions	 ?on	 ? infrastructure	 ? investments	 ? that	 ?will	 ? significantly	 ? reduce	 ? the	 ? organizations?	 ? emissions,	 ? this	 ? study	 ? aims	 ? to	 ? better	 ?understand	 ?the	 ?factors	 ?that	 ?motivate	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?including	 ?the	 ?need	 ? to	 ?provide	 ?adequate	 ? resources	 ?and	 ? support	 ?mechanisms	 ? that	 ?will	 ? enable	 ?these	 ?organizations	 ?to	 ?act.	 ?	 ?Moreover,	 ? by	 ? pointing	 ? out	 ? difficulties	 ? encountered	 ? during	 ? the	 ? first	 ? few	 ? years	 ? of	 ?implementation,	 ? this	 ? study	 ? can	 ? recommend	 ? improvements	 ? to	 ? be	 ? made	 ? to	 ? the	 ?mandate	 ? to	 ? enhance	 ? its	 ? effectiveness	 ? in	 ? mitigating	 ? climate	 ? change,	 ? strengthen	 ?support	 ? mechanisms	 ? and	 ? learning	 ? networks,	 ? including	 ? educational	 ? and	 ? capacity-??building	 ? strategies.	 ? These	 ? recommendations	 ? can	 ? help	 ? to	 ? ensure	 ? that	 ? PSOs	 ? are	 ?provided	 ?with	 ? the	 ?assistance	 ?and	 ? tools	 ? they	 ?need	 ? to	 ?overcome	 ?barriers	 ? and	 ?adopt	 ?innovative	 ? solutions	 ? that	 ?will	 ? enable	 ? them	 ? to	 ? achieve	 ? the	 ?desired	 ?outcomes	 ?of	 ? the	 ?mandate..	 ?The	 ?lessons	 ?learnt	 ?from	 ?these	 ?could	 ?be	 ?helpful	 ?not	 ?only	 ?to	 ?the	 ?case	 ?study	 ?PSOs,	 ?but	 ?also	 ?to	 ?other	 ?PSOs	 ?and	 ?local	 ?governments	 ?in	 ?BC.	 ?In	 ?addition,	 ?the	 ?insights	 ?will	 ? be	 ? very	 ? useful,	 ? if	 ? and	 ?when	 ? a	 ? similar	 ?mandate	 ? is	 ? extended	 ? to	 ? or	 ? adopted	 ? by	 ?other	 ?organizations,	 ?sectors	 ?or	 ?jurisdictions.	 ?	 ?	 ?1.5	 ? Structure	 ?of	 ?Thesis	 ?This	 ?thesis	 ?is	 ?divided	 ?into	 ?7	 ?chapters.	 ?Chapter	 ?1	 ?introduces	 ?the	 ?policy	 ?context	 ?in	 ?BC	 ?that	 ?offers	 ?an	 ?excellent	 ?opportunity	 ?to	 ?study	 ?whether	 ?requiring	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?be	 ? ?carbon	 ?	 ? 9	 ?neutral?	 ? is	 ? an	 ? effective	 ? policy	 ? to	 ? drastically	 ? reduce	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ? these	 ?organizations.	 ? Chapter	 ? 2	 ? summarizes	 ? the	 ? insights	 ? from	 ? a	 ? review	 ? of	 ? the	 ? existing	 ?literature	 ?relevant	 ?to	 ?the	 ?topics	 ?under	 ?study.	 ?Chapter	 ?3	 ?describes	 ?the	 ?methodology	 ?selected	 ?for	 ?this	 ?study.	 ?Chapter	 ?4	 ?presents	 ?the	 ?findings	 ?from	 ?the	 ?document	 ?analysis	 ?and	 ? quantitative	 ? analysis	 ? of	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? and	 ? energy	 ? consumption	 ? data,	 ? while	 ?Chapter	 ?5	 ?summarizes	 ?the	 ?findings	 ?from	 ?the	 ?expert	 ?interviews.	 ?Chapter	 ?6	 ?discusses	 ?the	 ? findings	 ? in	 ? relation	 ? to	 ? the	 ? propositions	 ? and	 ? research	 ? questions	 ? posed	 ? in	 ? this	 ?study	 ?and	 ?Chapter	 ?7	 ?concludes	 ?with	 ?the	 ?implications	 ?of	 ?the	 ?research	 ?findings,	 ?some	 ?policy	 ?recommendations	 ?and	 ?possible	 ?directions	 ?for	 ?future	 ?research.	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 10	 ?2.	 ? Literature	 ?Review	 ?2.1	 ? Introduction	 ?This	 ? chapter	 ? summarizes	 ? the	 ? insights	 ? from	 ? a	 ? review	 ? of	 ? the	 ? existing	 ? literature	 ?relevant	 ?to	 ?the	 ?topics	 ?for	 ?this	 ?study.	 ?These	 ?insights	 ?form	 ?the	 ?theoretical	 ?foundations	 ?and	 ?context	 ?for	 ?framing	 ?or	 ?scoping	 ?the	 ?study,	 ?identifying	 ?the	 ?research	 ?questions	 ?and	 ?formulating	 ?the	 ?methodology.	 ?They	 ?also	 ?help	 ?to	 ?select	 ?the	 ?key	 ?areas	 ?and	 ?questions	 ?that	 ? should	 ? be	 ? asked	 ? during	 ? the	 ? expert	 ? interviews,	 ? in	 ? order	 ? to	 ? ensure	 ? that	 ?information	 ? needed	 ? to	 ? understand	 ? the	 ? important	 ? categories	 ? or	 ? types	 ? of	 ? climate	 ?change	 ? actions	 ? undertaken	 ? by	 ? organizations,	 ? and	 ? critical	 ? factors	 ? that	 ? motivate	 ?organizations	 ? to	 ? take	 ? such	 ? action	 ? is	 ? collected.	 ? In	 ? addition,	 ? they	 ? provide	 ? the	 ?theoretical	 ? basis	 ? for	 ? analyzing	 ? quantitative	 ? data	 ? and	 ? qualitative	 ? information	 ?obtained	 ?from	 ?documents	 ?and	 ?expert	 ?interviews.	 ?	 ?Section	 ? 2.2	 ? explains	 ? the	 ? importance	 ? of	 ? taking	 ? an	 ? organizational	 ? perspective	 ? of	 ?climate	 ? change	 ? action	 ? and	 ? the	 ? need	 ? for	 ? more	 ? research	 ? on	 ? the	 ? roles	 ? of	 ? decision-??making	 ? processes	 ? and	 ? change	 ? management	 ? efforts	 ? within	 ? public	 ? sector	 ?organizations	 ? in	 ?making	 ? transformative	 ? changes	 ? to	 ? organizational	 ? GHG	 ? emissions.	 ?Section	 ?2.3	 ?follows	 ?with	 ?an	 ?examination	 ?of	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?and	 ?effectiveness	 ?of	 ?different	 ?approaches	 ? for	 ? intervention,	 ? including	 ? government	 ? mandates,	 ? in	 ? achieving	 ?environmental	 ? or	 ? climate	 ? goals.	 ? Section	 ? 2.4	 ? highlights	 ? the	 ? influence	 ? that	 ? policy	 ?boundaries	 ?can	 ?have	 ?on	 ?the	 ?effectiveness	 ?of	 ?a	 ?climate	 ?policy.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 11	 ?2.2	 ? An	 ?Organizational	 ?Perspective	 ?of	 ?Climate	 ?Change	 ?Action	 ?2.2.1	 ? Importance	 ?of	 ?Organizations	 ?Organizations	 ? can	 ? play	 ? an	 ? important	 ? and	 ? essential	 ? role	 ? in	 ? achieving	 ? the	 ? deep	 ?reductions	 ? in	 ?global	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? that	 ? are	 ? required,	 ? if	 ?we	 ?are	 ? to	 ? avoid	 ? the	 ?most	 ?devastating	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?change.	 ?Organizations	 ?are	 ?a	 ?ubiquitous	 ?feature	 ?of	 ?the	 ?modern	 ? society	 ? (Simon	 ? 1991)	 ? and	 ? ?corporations	 ? are	 ? the	 ? fundamental	 ? cells	 ? of	 ?modern	 ? economic	 ? life	 ? and	 ? their	 ? phenomenal	 ? success	 ? in	 ? transforming	 ? the	 ? earth?s	 ?resources	 ? into	 ?wealth	 ?has	 ? shaped	 ? the	 ?physical	 ?and	 ?social	 ?world	 ? in	 ?which	 ?we	 ? live.?	 ?(Dunphy	 ? 2007)	 ? The	 ? industrial	 ? and	 ? commercial	 ? sectors	 ? account	 ? for	 ? significantly	 ?more	 ?of	 ? global	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? than	 ? the	 ? individual/household	 ? sector.	 ?Yet,	 ? research	 ?on	 ?modification	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?behavior	 ?has	 ?mainly	 ?targeted	 ?individuals	 ?or	 ?small	 ?groups	 ? (Nilsson,	 ? von	 ? Borgstede,	 ? and	 ? Biel	 ? 2004).	 ? Companies	 ? develop	 ? new	 ?technologies	 ? and	 ? produce	 ? consumer	 ? goods	 ? for	 ? the	 ? market,	 ? while	 ? public	 ?organizations	 ?administer	 ?and	 ?enforce	 ?policy	 ?tools	 ?to	 ?influence	 ?the	 ?behavior	 ?of	 ?target	 ?groups.	 ? Hence,	 ? through	 ? their	 ? activities,	 ? companies	 ? and	 ? other	 ? organizations	 ? create	 ?both	 ?direct	 ?and	 ?indirect	 ?effects	 ?on	 ?the	 ?environment	 ?and	 ?so	 ?it	 ?is	 ?useful	 ?to	 ?understand	 ?how	 ? climate	 ? change	 ? policies	 ? affect	 ? them	 ? (Nilsson,	 ? von	 ? Borgstede,	 ? and	 ? Biel	 ? 2004).	 ?Moreover,	 ? organizations,	 ? individually	 ? or	 ? as	 ? a	 ? group,	 ? control	 ? large	 ? amounts	 ? of	 ?resources.	 ?These	 ?resources	 ?are	 ?often	 ?critical	 ?for	 ?bringing	 ?about	 ?the	 ?changes	 ?that	 ?are	 ?needed	 ?to	 ?drastically	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?The	 ? organizational	 ? perspective	 ? is	 ? also	 ? important	 ? because	 ? organizations,	 ? whether	 ?public	 ? or	 ? private,	 ? are	 ? major	 ? discretionary	 ? consumers	 ? of	 ? goods	 ? and	 ? services.	 ?Consumption	 ? directly	 ? and	 ? indirectly	 ? accounts	 ? for	 ? the	 ? bulk	 ? of	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? (Bin	 ?and	 ? Dowlatabadi	 ? 2005).	 ? Efforts	 ? to	 ? ?green?	 ? the	 ? economy	 ? therefore	 ? require	 ? an	 ?understanding	 ? of	 ? organizations	 ? as	 ? consumers,	 ? besides	 ? an	 ? understanding	 ? of	 ?individual	 ? end-??user	 ? consumers.	 ? Organizations	 ? are	 ? ?a	 ? dominant	 ? but	 ? under-??emphasized	 ?force	 ?in	 ?greening	 ?the	 ?economy?,	 ?and	 ?there	 ?may	 ?be	 ?currently	 ?many	 ?more	 ?	 ? 12	 ?opportunities	 ? for	 ? intervention	 ? in	 ? the	 ? organizations?	 ? supply	 ? chains	 ? and	 ? inter-??organizational	 ?networks,	 ? through	 ? changing	 ?how	 ?and	 ?what	 ?organizations	 ? consume,	 ?than	 ?there	 ?are	 ?for	 ?greening	 ?end-??user	 ?consumption	 ?(Green,	 ?Morton,	 ?and	 ?New	 ?2000).	 ?	 ?2.2.2	 ? Public	 ?Sector	 ?Organizations	 ?A	 ?survey	 ?of	 ?the	 ?literature	 ?clearly	 ?shows	 ?that	 ?most	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?policies	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?influencing	 ? the	 ? private	 ? sector,	 ? whereas	 ? the	 ? performance	 ? of	 ? government	 ? agencies	 ?themselves	 ? has	 ? not	 ? been	 ? adequately	 ? scrutinized.	 ? One	 ? main	 ? reason	 ? is	 ? that	 ? direct	 ?emissions	 ? from	 ? the	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? are	 ? generally	 ? small	 ? (typically	 ? about	 ? 1?2%,	 ?depending	 ? on	 ? the	 ? role	 ? of	 ? governments).	 ?However,	 ? indirect	 ? emissions	 ? arising	 ? from	 ?their	 ? activities,	 ? and	 ? goods	 ? and	 ? services	 ? consumed	 ? by	 ? PSOs,	 ? are	 ? much	 ? more	 ?significant.	 ? For	 ? example,	 ? government	 ? procurement	 ? makes	 ? up	 ? about	 ? 15%	 ? of	 ?European	 ?Union	 ?economic	 ?activity	 ?(Erdmenger	 ?2003).	 ?	 ?	 ?Another	 ? reason	 ? for	 ? studying	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? organizations	 ? is	 ? the	 ? increasing	 ?recognition	 ? in	 ? recent	 ? years	 ? that	 ? every	 ? level	 ? of	 ? government	 ? has	 ? a	 ? role	 ? to	 ? play	 ? in	 ?addressing	 ?climate	 ?change,	 ?although	 ?that	 ?role	 ?is	 ?still	 ?being	 ?intensely	 ?debated	 ?(Collier	 ?and	 ?Lofstedt	 ?1997;	 ?Rabe	 ?2008;	 ?Lutsey	 ?and	 ?Sperling	 ?2008;	 ?Aall,	 ?Groven,	 ?and	 ?Lindseth	 ?2011).	 ?One	 ?issue	 ?is	 ?the	 ?appropriate	 ?scale	 ?of	 ?intervention.	 ?Given	 ?the	 ?global	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?the	 ?problem,	 ?the	 ?question	 ?often	 ?asked	 ?is	 ?whether	 ?state-??	 ?or	 ?local-??level	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?actions	 ?matter,	 ?or	 ?are	 ?they	 ?instead	 ?counter-??productive	 ?to	 ?national	 ?and	 ?international	 ?efforts	 ? (Keeler	 ?2007).	 ?What	 ? is	 ? clear,	 ?however,	 ? is	 ? that	 ? the	 ?drastic	 ? reduction	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?required	 ? to	 ? stabilize	 ? global	 ? climates	 ? cannot	 ? be	 ? achieved	 ? without	 ? the	 ? active	 ?participation	 ? of	 ? all	 ? levels	 ? of	 ? government.	 ? Moreover,	 ? ?because	 ? no	 ? single	 ? approach	 ?guarantees	 ?a	 ?sure	 ?path	 ?to	 ?ultimate	 ?success,	 ?the	 ?best	 ?strategy	 ?to	 ?address	 ?this	 ?ultimate	 ?commons	 ? problem	 ? may	 ? be	 ? to	 ? pursue	 ? a	 ? variety	 ? of	 ? approaches	 ? simultaneously.?	 ?(Stavins	 ?2011)	 ?	 ?	 ? 13	 ?The	 ? need	 ? for	 ? involvement	 ? of	 ? multiple	 ? levels	 ? of	 ? government	 ? may	 ? already	 ? be	 ?unavoidable,	 ?given	 ?the	 ?experience	 ?thus	 ?far	 ?with	 ?unsuccessful	 ?attempts	 ?at	 ?forging	 ?an	 ?agreement	 ?at	 ?the	 ?international	 ?level.	 ?Several	 ?national	 ?and	 ?sub-??national	 ?governments	 ?have	 ? unilaterally	 ? proceeded	 ? with	 ? their	 ? own	 ? experiments,	 ? such	 ? as	 ? setting	 ? carbon-??neutrality	 ? targets	 ? for	 ? their	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? or	 ? selected	 ?municipalities,	 ? and	 ? grouping	 ?together	 ?with	 ?similar	 ?jurisdictions	 ?to	 ?form	 ?regional	 ?emission	 ?markets.	 ?Some	 ?of	 ?these	 ?efforts	 ? are	 ?without	 ? doubt	 ? undertaken	 ? ?to	 ? lead	 ? by	 ? example?,	 ? based	 ? on	 ? the	 ? premise	 ?that	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?action	 ?would	 ? influence	 ?private	 ?sector	 ?action,	 ?or	 ?at	 ? least	 ?enhance	 ?the	 ?political	 ?acceptance	 ?of	 ?regulation	 ?in	 ?future	 ?(Northrop	 ?2004;	 ?Ball	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009).	 ?	 ?Governments	 ? have	 ? carried	 ? out	 ? many	 ? ?experiments?	 ? in	 ? the	 ? past	 ? involving	 ? both	 ?mandatory	 ?and	 ?voluntary	 ?programs	 ?for	 ?environmental	 ?protection.	 ?These	 ?could	 ?hold	 ?useful	 ? lessons	 ? that	 ? inform	 ? policies	 ? and	 ? implementation	 ? for	 ? climate	 ? change	 ?mitigation.	 ? In	 ?particular,	 ? an	 ? interesting	 ?aspect	 ? that	 ?has	 ?been	 ?under-??studied	 ? is	 ?how	 ?government	 ? agencies	 ? themselves	 ? have	 ? performed	 ? in	 ? the	 ? face	 ? of	 ? regulation	 ? or	 ?mandates.	 ? If	 ? such	 ? mandates	 ? are	 ? effective,	 ? they	 ? may	 ? be	 ? an	 ? alternative,	 ?complementary	 ? or	 ? interim	 ? way	 ? to	 ? proceed,	 ? as	 ? part	 ? of	 ? a	 ? portfolio	 ? of	 ? different	 ?approaches	 ? involving	 ? multiple	 ? actors	 ? (Kok	 ? et	 ? al.	 ? 2002),	 ? especially	 ? where	 ? it	 ? is	 ?politically	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?initiate	 ?regulation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?private	 ?sector.	 ?	 ?	 ?2.2.3	 ? Transformative	 ?Changes	 ?Needed	 ?Deep	 ?reductions	 ?in	 ?global	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?may	 ?only	 ?be	 ?achieved	 ?and	 ?sustained	 ?with	 ?transformative	 ?changes	 ?in	 ?the	 ?way	 ?the	 ?world	 ?produces	 ?and	 ?uses	 ?energy.	 ?Some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?most	 ? significant	 ? transformative	 ? changes	 ? involve	 ? infrastructure	 ? and	 ? management	 ?systems,	 ? such	 ? as	 ? switching	 ? to	 ? a	 ? lower-??carbon	 ? form	 ? of	 ? energy	 ? or	 ? a	 ? more	 ? efficient	 ?heating	 ? system.	 ? Moreover,	 ? it	 ? may	 ? be	 ? necessary	 ? to	 ? shift	 ? from	 ? discrete	 ? goals	 ? and	 ?initiatives	 ? to	 ? more	 ? integrative	 ? and	 ? systemic	 ? approaches	 ? in	 ? energy	 ? efficiency	 ? and	 ?conservation	 ?(Dusyk	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009).	 ?Individual	 ?attitudinal	 ?and	 ?behavioural	 ?changes	 ?can	 ?	 ? 14	 ?also	 ? play	 ? a	 ? part,	 ? often	 ? aided	 ? by	 ? informational	 ? campaigns	 ? and	 ? small	 ? financial	 ?incentives.	 ? But	 ? these	 ? may	 ? bring	 ? about	 ? ?at	 ? best	 ? incremental	 ? change,	 ? which	 ? is	 ?unstable,	 ?fragmented	 ?and	 ?subject	 ?to	 ?reversal?	 ?(Webb	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?	 ?For	 ? service	 ? organizations,	 ? including	 ?most	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? organizations,	 ? the	 ? bulk	 ? of	 ?their	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? arise	 ? from	 ? stationary	 ? sources	 ? such	 ? as	 ? heating	 ? and	 ? cooling	 ?systems,	 ? and	 ? mobile	 ? sources	 ? such	 ? as	 ? their	 ? fleet	 ? of	 ? vehicles.	 ? Such	 ? infrastructure	 ?typically	 ?have	 ?long	 ?lifespans,	 ?so	 ?once	 ?installed,	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?are	 ?locked	 ?in	 ?for	 ?a	 ? lengthy	 ?period	 ?and	 ?further	 ? investment	 ? is	 ?usually	 ?required	 ?to	 ?significantly	 ?reduce	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?For	 ?instance,	 ?based	 ?on	 ?their	 ?reports	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012,	 ?90%	 ?or	 ? more	 ? of	 ? carbon	 ? emissions	 ? of	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? in	 ? BC	 ? were	 ? from	 ?stationary	 ? emission	 ? sources,	 ? primarily	 ? heating	 ? and	 ? cooling	 ? of	 ? buildings.	 ? Hence,	 ?transformative	 ?changes	 ?to	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ?service	 ?organizations	 ?and	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?organizations	 ? would	 ? likely	 ? hinge	 ? on	 ? decisions	 ? regarding	 ? investment	 ? in	 ? new	 ?infrastructure	 ? for	 ? energy	 ? production	 ? and	 ? use,	 ? as	 ? well	 ? as	 ? retrofit	 ? of	 ? older	 ?infrastructure.	 ?	 ?2.2.4	 ? Organizational	 ?Efforts	 ?Over	 ? the	 ? last	 ? decade	 ? or	 ? so,	 ? several	 ? large	 ? organizations	 ? (e.g.	 ? Walmart)	 ? have	 ?voluntarily	 ? embarked	 ? on	 ? high-??profile	 ? efforts	 ? towards	 ? more	 ? ?sustainable?	 ? ways	 ? of	 ?doing	 ?business.	 ?Some	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?praised	 ?these	 ?efforts,	 ?while	 ?others	 ?have	 ?criticized	 ?these	 ?as	 ?mere	 ??green-??washing?.	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?whilst	 ?Walmart	 ?has	 ?been	 ?lauded	 ?for	 ?its	 ?efforts	 ? to	 ? ?green?	 ? its	 ? supply	 ? chain,	 ? it	 ? has	 ? been	 ? blamed	 ? for	 ? causing	 ? an	 ? increase	 ? in	 ?emissions	 ? arising	 ? from	 ? construction	 ? of	 ? its	 ? mega-??stores	 ? and	 ? increased	 ? traffic	 ? of	 ?shoppers	 ? (Wal-??mart	 ? Watch	 ? 2007).	 ? There	 ? are	 ? few,	 ? if	 ? any,	 ? rigorous	 ? independent	 ?studies	 ? of	 ? how	 ? successful	 ? these	 ? private	 ? sector	 ? voluntary	 ? efforts	 ? have	 ? been	 ? in	 ?reducing	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?Part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?reason	 ?could	 ?be	 ?that	 ?these	 ?organizations	 ?have	 ?been	 ?unwilling	 ?to	 ?share	 ?detailed	 ?information,	 ?for	 ?competitiveness	 ?reasons.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 15	 ?Studies	 ? have	 ? also	 ? found	 ? mixed	 ? results	 ? on	 ? the	 ? link	 ? between	 ? corporate	 ? social	 ? and	 ?financial	 ? performance	 ? (Margolis	 ? and	 ? Walsh	 ? 2003;	 ? Busch	 ? and	 ? Hoffmann	 ? 2011).	 ?Corporate	 ? response	 ? to	 ? climate	 ? change	 ? ?is	 ?highly	 ?ambiguous,	 ?with	 ?energetic	 ?efforts	 ?yielding	 ? few	 ?meaningful	 ? results?	 ? (Jones	 ?and	 ?Levy	 ?2007).	 ?Corporate	 ? responses	 ?also	 ?tend	 ?to	 ?be	 ?directed	 ?towards	 ?organizational	 ?changes	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?emission	 ?reduction	 ?per	 ?se	 ?(Jones	 ?and	 ?Levy	 ?2007).	 ?Most	 ?companies	 ?that	 ?have	 ?carbon	 ?neutrality	 ?goals	 ?are	 ?still	 ? in	 ? business-??as-??usual	 ? mode	 ? and	 ? have	 ? not	 ? undergone	 ? major	 ? transformation	 ? of	 ?their	 ? operations,	 ? except	 ? perhaps	 ? in	 ? tiny	 ? parts	 ? of	 ? their	 ? businesses,	 ? and	 ? corporate	 ?efforts	 ?in	 ?carbon	 ?neutrality	 ?are	 ?mostly	 ?achieved	 ?by	 ?offsets	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?own	 ?emissions	 ?(Hewitt	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?Many	 ? prominent	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? (also	 ? referred	 ? to	 ? as	 ? ?universities	 ? and	 ?colleges?),	 ?too,	 ?have	 ?increased	 ?their	 ?emphasis	 ?towards	 ??sustainability?,	 ?most	 ?notably	 ?by	 ? their	 ? efforts	 ? to	 ? ?green?	 ? their	 ? campuses.	 ? These	 ? were	 ? accompanied	 ? by	 ? much-??publicized	 ? commitments,	 ? such	 ? as	 ? the	 ?American	 ?College	 ? and	 ?University	 ?Presidents?	 ?Climate	 ?Commitment.	 ?Since	 ?most	 ?of	 ?these	 ?institutions	 ?are	 ?accountable	 ?to	 ?the	 ?public	 ?for	 ? their	 ? performance,	 ? one	 ?might	 ? expect	 ? that	 ? it	 ?would	 ? be	 ? possible	 ? to	 ? obtain	 ?more	 ?information	 ? on	 ? these	 ? potentially	 ? transformative	 ? efforts	 ? compared	 ? to	 ? private	 ?companies.	 ?However,	 ?while	 ?there	 ?are	 ?a	 ?few	 ?success	 ?stories	 ?(Mascarelli	 ?2009;	 ?Worth	 ?2005),	 ?there	 ?are	 ?few	 ?independent	 ?studies	 ?that	 ?have	 ?produced	 ?strong	 ?evidence	 ?that	 ?these	 ?efforts	 ?have	 ?resulted	 ?in	 ?universities	 ?and	 ?colleges	 ?becoming	 ?more	 ??sustainable?	 ?(whatever	 ? the	 ? definition	 ? is),	 ? nor	 ? have	 ? their	 ? absolute	 ? level	 ? of	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? been	 ?shown	 ? to	 ? decrease	 ? significantly.	 ? Most	 ? of	 ? these	 ? studies	 ? documented	 ? the	 ?commitments	 ?and	 ?actions	 ?taken,	 ?but	 ?do	 ?not	 ?quantify	 ? the	 ?outcome	 ?of	 ? these	 ?actions.	 ?Another	 ? study	 ? also	 ? found	 ? that	 ? sustainability	 ? appears	 ? to	 ? be	 ? something	 ? of	 ? a	 ? luxury	 ?good	 ?in	 ?higher	 ?education,	 ?since	 ?larger	 ?and	 ?wealthier	 ?institutions	 ?are	 ?more	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?adopt	 ?sustainability	 ?than	 ?smaller,	 ?less	 ?well-??endowed	 ?institutions	 ?(Stafford	 ?2011).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 16	 ?2.2.5	 ? Decision-??Making	 ?To	 ?better	 ?understand	 ?what	 ?motivates	 ?these	 ?organizations	 ?to	 ?go	 ?beyond	 ?compliance	 ?to	 ?government	 ?regulations	 ? to	 ?achieve	 ? ?sustainability?,	 ? ?climate	 ?neutrality?	 ?or	 ?simply	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?we	 ?can	 ?look	 ?at	 ?how	 ?decisions	 ?are	 ?made	 ?to	 ?undertake	 ?transformative	 ? changes	 ? to	 ? their	 ? infrastructure,	 ? such	 ? as	 ? implementing	 ? an	 ? energy	 ?efficiency	 ? project.	 ? Several	 ? organizational	 ? or	 ? institutional	 ? theories	 ? have	 ? been	 ? put	 ?forward	 ?to	 ?explain	 ?the	 ?decision-??making	 ?process	 ?and	 ?factors	 ?that	 ?influence	 ?decisions	 ?in	 ? organizations	 ? (Goitein	 ? 1989).	 ? Besides	 ? purely	 ? economic	 ? factors,	 ? such	 ? as	 ? energy	 ?cost,	 ?other	 ?factors	 ?like	 ?payback	 ?period,	 ?availability	 ?of	 ?funds	 ?and	 ?expertise	 ?have	 ?been	 ?found	 ? to	 ? be	 ? important	 ? in	 ? such	 ? decisions	 ? (Sorrell	 ? et	 ? al.	 ? 2000;	 ? Abadie,	 ? Ortiz,	 ? and	 ?Galarraga	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?	 ?Prior	 ?research	 ?on	 ?organizations	 ?has	 ?identified	 ?both	 ?external	 ?and	 ?internal	 ?drivers	 ?of	 ?corporate	 ? environmental	 ? response,	 ? including	 ? legislation,	 ? stakeholder	 ? pressures,	 ?economic	 ? opportunities,	 ? and	 ? ethical	 ?motives.	 ? Governments,	 ? in	 ? setting	 ? targets	 ? and	 ?benchmarks,	 ? effectively	 ? focus	 ? firms?	 ? planning,	 ? execution,	 ? and	 ?measurement.	 ?These	 ?policies	 ? create	 ? a	 ? favorable	 ? environment	 ? in	 ?which	 ? companies	 ? can	 ? allocate	 ? funds	 ?or	 ?secure	 ? financing	 ? to	 ? pay	 ? for	 ? measures	 ? that	 ? might	 ? otherwise	 ? be	 ? more	 ? difficult	 ? to	 ?justify	 ? (Northrop	 ? 2004).	 ? (Bansal	 ? and	 ? Roth	 ? 2000)	 ? highlighted	 ? the	 ? importance	 ? of	 ?organizational	 ?relationships	 ?at	 ?different	 ?levels,	 ?with	 ?individuals,	 ?other	 ?organizations	 ?and	 ?with	 ?nature,	 ?in	 ?shaping	 ?organizational	 ?responses.	 ?	 ?(Florida,	 ? Atlas,	 ? and	 ? Cline	 ? 2001)	 ? focused	 ? attention	 ? on	 ? factors	 ? operating	 ? inside	 ? the	 ??black	 ?box?	 ?of	 ?the	 ?organization.	 ?The	 ?major	 ?findings	 ?of	 ?their	 ?research	 ?confirmed	 ?that	 ?organizational	 ? factors	 ? matter	 ? significantly	 ? in	 ? the	 ? process	 ? of	 ? adopting	 ?environmentally	 ? conscious	 ? manufacturing.	 ? They	 ? also	 ? found	 ? that	 ? organizational	 ?capabilities	 ? and	 ? resources	 ? play	 ? a	 ? considerable	 ? role,	 ? particularly	 ? specialized	 ?environmental	 ? resources	 ? that	 ? provide	 ? the	 ? embedded	 ? capacity	 ? that	 ? enables	 ?organizations	 ? to	 ? respond	 ? to	 ? external	 ? stimuli	 ? and	 ? implement	 ? environmental	 ?	 ? 17	 ?innovations	 ?(Florida,	 ?Atlas,	 ?and	 ?Cline	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?	 ?Other	 ?research	 ?on	 ? the	 ?adoption	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ? initiatives	 ?has	 ?demonstrated	 ? the	 ?importance	 ? of	 ?matching	 ? the	 ? attributes	 ? of	 ? a	 ? proposed	 ? initiative,	 ? such	 ? as	 ? voluntary	 ?purchase	 ? of	 ? green	 ? electricity,	 ?with	 ? organizational	 ? values	 ? (Berkhout	 ? and	 ?Rowlands	 ?2007).	 ? However,	 ? predicting	 ? how	 ? companies	 ? would	 ? respond	 ? to	 ? particular	 ? policy	 ?instruments	 ? remains	 ? an	 ? imprecise	 ? science	 ? because	 ? ?rational?	 ? behavior	 ? from	 ? an	 ?economic	 ? perspective	 ? is	 ? often	 ? overshadowed	 ? by	 ? non-??economic	 ? factors,	 ? such	 ? as	 ?imperfect	 ?information,	 ?the	 ??lumpiness?	 ?of	 ?capital	 ?and	 ?technology,	 ?competing	 ?sectoral	 ?policies,	 ? and	 ?diverse	 ?national	 ?and	 ?corporate	 ?cultures.	 ?Hence,	 ?environmental	 ?policy	 ?implementation	 ?cannot	 ?be	 ?properly	 ?understood	 ?and	 ? improved	 ?without	 ?a	 ? thorough	 ?comprehension	 ? of	 ? the	 ? values,	 ? attitudes,	 ? pressures	 ? and	 ? motivations	 ? shaping	 ? actor	 ?behavior	 ?(Bailey	 ?and	 ?Rupp	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?Another	 ?important	 ?thread	 ?within	 ?this	 ?literature	 ?deals	 ?with	 ?the	 ?role	 ?of	 ?organizational	 ?structures	 ? and	 ? procedures.	 ? (Berkhout	 ? and	 ? Rowlands	 ? 2007)	 ? provides	 ? evidence	 ? to	 ?support	 ?the	 ?functional	 ?role	 ?that	 ?formal	 ?organizational	 ?structures	 ?play	 ?in	 ?establishing	 ?a	 ? favorable	 ? organizational	 ? context	 ? for	 ? issue	 ? selling,	 ? whereas	 ? (Delmas	 ? and	 ? Toffel	 ?2008)	 ? argues	 ? that	 ? differences	 ? in	 ? organizations?	 ? adoption	 ? of	 ? environmental	 ?management	 ?practices	 ?reflect	 ?not	 ?only	 ?different	 ?levels	 ?of	 ?institutional	 ?pressures,	 ?but	 ?also	 ? differences	 ? in	 ? the	 ? influence	 ? of	 ? functional	 ? departments	 ? through	 ?which	 ?market	 ?and	 ?nonmarket	 ?signals	 ?are	 ?transmitted	 ?through	 ?the	 ?organization.	 ?	 ?	 ?Institutional	 ? structures	 ? and	 ? procedures	 ? also	 ? feature	 ? prominently	 ? when	 ? (Green,	 ?Morton,	 ? and	 ? New	 ? 2000)	 ? looked	 ? at	 ? the	 ? transmission	 ? of	 ? market	 ? signals	 ? within	 ?organizations	 ? carrying	 ? out	 ? ?green?	 ? procurement	 ? activities.	 ? They	 ? found	 ? that	 ? the	 ?places	 ? within	 ? many	 ? organizations	 ? and	 ?mechanisms	 ? for	 ? translating	 ? environmental	 ?concerns	 ? into	 ?procurement	 ?activity	 ?were	 ? rather	 ? ill	 ?defined.	 ?There	 ?was	 ?also	 ?a	 ?wide	 ?range	 ?of	 ?patterns	 ?of	 ?departmental	 ?and	 ?personal	 ?involvement	 ?and	 ?the	 ?widely	 ?varying	 ?	 ? 18	 ?effects	 ? (real	 ? and	 ?perceived)	 ?of	 ?purchasing	 ?procedures.	 ?All	 ? these	 ? just	 ? goes	 ? to	 ? show	 ?how	 ? complicated	 ? adoption	 ? of	 ? green	 ? procurement	 ? (and	 ? other	 ? environmental	 ?practices)	 ?by	 ?organizations	 ?can	 ?be	 ?(Green,	 ?Morton,	 ?and	 ?New	 ?2000).	 ?	 ?There	 ?is	 ?a	 ?long	 ?history	 ?of	 ?studies	 ?on	 ?decision-??making	 ?processes	 ?and	 ?driving	 ?forces	 ?in	 ?the	 ? public	 ? sector.	 ? In	 ? the	 ? book	 ? Administrative	 ? Behavior	 ? (Simon	 ? 1957),	 ? Simon	 ?theorized	 ? that	 ? organization	 ? behavior	 ? is	 ? (and	 ? should	 ? be	 ? understood	 ? as)	 ? a	 ? complex	 ?network	 ?of	 ?decisional	 ?processes.	 ?Metaphorically,	 ?the	 ?anatomy	 ?of	 ?the	 ?organization	 ?is	 ?to	 ?be	 ?found	 ?in	 ?the	 ?distribution	 ?and	 ?allocation	 ?of	 ?decision-??making	 ?functions,	 ?while	 ?the	 ?physiology	 ? of	 ? the	 ? organization	 ? is	 ? to	 ? be	 ? found	 ? in	 ? the	 ? processes	 ? whereby	 ? the	 ?organization	 ? influences	 ? the	 ? decisions	 ? of	 ? each	 ? of	 ? its	 ? members.	 ? For	 ? Simon,	 ? the	 ?practical	 ?limits	 ?to	 ?human	 ?rationality	 ?point	 ?to	 ?the	 ?need	 ?for	 ?an	 ?administrative	 ?theory.	 ?These	 ? limits	 ? are	 ? not	 ? static,	 ? but	 ? depend	 ? upon	 ? the	 ? organizational	 ? environment	 ? in	 ?which	 ? the	 ? individual?s	 ? decision	 ? takes	 ? place.	 ? The	 ? task	 ? of	 ? administration	 ? is	 ? thus	 ? to	 ?design	 ?this	 ?environment	 ?so	 ?that	 ?the	 ?individual	 ?will	 ?approach	 ?as	 ?close	 ?as	 ?practicable	 ?to	 ? rationality	 ? in	 ? his	 ? decisions,	 ? judged	 ? in	 ? terms	 ? of	 ? the	 ? organization's	 ? goals	 ? (Simon	 ?1957).	 ?	 ?	 ?Similarly,	 ? for	 ? Charles	 ? Lindblom,	 ? limits	 ? on	 ? human	 ? intellectual	 ? capacities	 ? and	 ? on	 ?available	 ? information	 ? set	 ? definite	 ? limits	 ? to	 ?man's	 ? capacity	 ? to	 ?be	 ? comprehensive	 ? in	 ?decision-??making.	 ?As	 ?such,	 ?no	 ?one	 ?can	 ?practice	 ? the	 ?rational-??comprehensive	 ?method	 ?of	 ?decision-??making	 ?for	 ?really	 ?complex	 ?problems,	 ?and	 ?every	 ?administrator	 ?faced	 ?with	 ?a	 ? sufficiently	 ? complex	 ?problem	 ?must	 ? find	 ?ways	 ? to	 ?drastically	 ? simplify	 ? it.	 ?Decision-??making	 ?is	 ?therefore	 ?a	 ?process	 ?of	 ??muddling	 ?through?	 ?or	 ?successive	 ?approximation	 ?to	 ?some	 ?desired	 ?objectives,	 ?in	 ?which	 ?what	 ?is	 ?desired	 ?changes	 ?continuously	 ?(Lindblom	 ?1959).	 ?	 ?Another	 ? prominent	 ? framework	 ? that	 ? is	 ? often	 ? used	 ? to	 ? explain	 ? decision-??making	 ? in	 ?organizations	 ? comes	 ? from	 ? the	 ? ?garbage	 ? can?	 ?models	 ? introduced	 ? by	 ? (Cohen,	 ?March,	 ?	 ? 19	 ?and	 ?Olsen	 ?1972).	 ?In	 ?their	 ?seminal	 ?article,	 ?they	 ?describe	 ?the	 ?decision-??making	 ?process	 ?of	 ? ?organized	 ? anarchies?	 ? ?	 ? organizations	 ? or	 ? decision-??situations	 ? characterized	 ? by	 ?three	 ?general	 ?properties	 ?of	 ?problematic	 ?preferences,	 ?unclear	 ? technology,	 ? and	 ? fluid	 ?participation.	 ? To	 ? them,	 ? organized	 ? anarchy	 ? will	 ? describe	 ? a	 ? portion	 ? of	 ? almost	 ? any	 ?organization's	 ? activities,	 ? although	 ? they	 ? are	 ? particularly	 ? conspicuous	 ? in	 ? public	 ? and	 ?educational	 ? organizations	 ? such	 ? as	 ? universities.	 ? In	 ? their	 ? garbage	 ? can	 ? model,	 ? a	 ?decision	 ? is	 ? an	 ? outcome	 ? or	 ? interaction	 ? of	 ? several	 ? relatively	 ? independent	 ? streams	 ?within	 ?an	 ?organization.	 ?Four	 ?such	 ?streams	 ?were	 ?highlighted	 ??	 ?problems,	 ?solutions,	 ?participants	 ?and	 ?choice	 ?opportunities.	 ?Putting	 ?these	 ?together,	 ?one	 ?can	 ?view	 ?a	 ?choice	 ?opportunity	 ?as	 ?a	 ?garbage	 ?can	 ?into	 ?which	 ?various	 ?kinds	 ?of	 ?problems	 ?and	 ?solutions	 ?are	 ?dumped	 ?by	 ?participants	 ?as	 ?they	 ?are	 ?generated	 ?(Cohen,	 ?March,	 ?and	 ?Olsen	 ?1972).	 ?The	 ?problems	 ? that	 ? are	 ? solved	 ? depend	 ? on	 ? the	 ? complicated	 ? intermeshing	 ? of	 ? elements,	 ?including	 ?the	 ?mix	 ?of	 ?choices	 ?available	 ?at	 ?any	 ?one	 ?time,	 ?the	 ?mix	 ?of	 ?problems	 ?that	 ?have	 ?access	 ? to	 ? the	 ? organization,	 ? and	 ? the	 ? outside	 ? demands	 ? on	 ? the	 ? decision	 ? makers.	 ?Although	 ?this	 ?process	 ?does	 ?not	 ?always	 ?resolve	 ?problems	 ?well,	 ? it	 ?enables	 ?choices	 ?to	 ?be	 ?made	 ? even	 ?when	 ? the	 ? organization	 ? is	 ? plagued	 ?with	 ? goal	 ? ambiguity	 ? and	 ? conflict	 ?(Cohen,	 ?March,	 ?and	 ?Olsen	 ?1972).	 ?	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ?are	 ?acknowledged	 ? to	 ?be	 ?among	 ? the	 ?most	 ?complex	 ?organizations	 ?in	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?decision-??making	 ?(Cohen,	 ?March,	 ?and	 ?Olsen	 ?1972).	 ?They	 ? have	 ? multiple	 ? goals,	 ? such	 ? as	 ? providing	 ? high	 ? quality	 ? education	 ? to	 ? students,	 ?promoting	 ?research	 ?in	 ?numerous	 ?disciplines,	 ?and	 ?enhancing	 ?the	 ?general	 ?welfare	 ?of	 ?their	 ? community	 ? (Stafford	 ? 2011).	 ? Some	 ? even	 ? operate	 ? like	 ? a	 ? small	 ? municipality,	 ?owning	 ?its	 ?own	 ?energy	 ?production	 ?facilities.	 ?Among	 ?their	 ?decisions	 ?are	 ?those	 ?critical	 ?ones	 ?on	 ?infrastructure	 ?within	 ?the	 ?campus	 ?and	 ?policies	 ?regarding	 ?energy	 ?use,	 ?which	 ?affect	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?over	 ?an	 ?extended	 ?period	 ?of	 ?time.	 ?Overall,	 ?they	 ?are	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?be	 ?less	 ?influenced	 ?by	 ?financial	 ?considerations	 ?than	 ?for-??profit	 ?firms	 ?both	 ?because	 ?they	 ?may	 ?be	 ?able	 ?to	 ?take	 ?a	 ?longer-??term	 ?view	 ?than	 ?for-??profit	 ?firms	 ?and	 ?because	 ?they	 ?may	 ? have	 ? a	 ? mission	 ? that	 ? includes	 ? service	 ? to	 ? the	 ? community.	 ? Encouraging	 ?sustainability	 ? and	 ? leading	 ? by	 ? example	 ? may	 ? be	 ? one	 ? way	 ? in	 ? which	 ? an	 ? institution	 ?	 ? 20	 ?achieves	 ? this	 ? mission.	 ? They	 ? may	 ? also	 ? be	 ? more	 ? likely	 ? to	 ? invest	 ? in	 ? sustainable	 ?practices	 ? that	 ? have	 ? a	 ? long-??term	 ? impact	 ? than	 ? for-??profit	 ? firms	 ? (Stafford	 ? 2011).	 ? An	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?these	 ?institutions	 ?is	 ?therefore	 ?important	 ?not	 ?only	 ?because	 ?they	 ?are	 ?often	 ? publicly-??funded,	 ? but	 ? also	 ? because	 ? these	 ? institutions	 ? ?may	 ? be	 ? seen	 ? as	 ??microcosms?	 ? of	 ? society,	 ? and	 ? therefore	 ? their	 ? experiences	 ? may	 ? inform	 ? efforts	 ? for	 ?change	 ?at	 ?the	 ?societal	 ?level?	 ?(Brinkhurst	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2011).	 ?	 ?	 ?2.2.6	 ? Change	 ?Management	 ?The	 ? literature	 ? on	 ? change	 ? management	 ? offers	 ? another	 ? organizational	 ? perspective	 ?that	 ? focuses	 ? on	 ? factors	 ? that	 ? affect	 ? or	 ? facilitate	 ? change,	 ? in	 ? particular,	 ? large-??scale	 ?planned,	 ?strategic,	 ?and	 ?administrative	 ?transformation	 ?towards	 ?a	 ?lower-??carbon	 ?state.	 ?This	 ?literature	 ?is	 ??immense	 ?but	 ?overwhelmingly	 ?focused	 ?on	 ?the	 ?private	 ?sector?,	 ?with	 ?the	 ? majority	 ? of	 ? articles	 ? reporting	 ? research	 ? and	 ? theory	 ? appearing	 ? more	 ? often	 ? in	 ?research	 ? journals	 ? on	 ? general	 ? management	 ? and	 ? organization	 ? theory,	 ? rather	 ? than	 ?public	 ? administration	 ? journals.	 ? Moreover,	 ? ?this	 ? vast	 ? body	 ? of	 ? work	 ? abounds	 ? with	 ?complexities,	 ?including	 ?multiple	 ?and	 ?conflicting	 ?theories	 ?and	 ?research	 ?findings	 ?and	 ?a	 ?good	 ?bit	 ?of	 ?inconclusiveness.?	 ?(Fernandez	 ?and	 ?Rainey	 ?2006)	 ?	 ?	 ?One	 ? major	 ? theoretical	 ? conflict	 ? surrounds	 ? the	 ? causes	 ? of	 ? change	 ? in	 ? organizations,	 ?especially	 ?the	 ?capacity	 ?of	 ?managers	 ?to	 ?bring	 ?about	 ?change.	 ?Despite	 ?the	 ?differences	 ?in	 ?views	 ? among	 ? theorists,	 ? a	 ? significant	 ? body	 ? of	 ? research	 ? indicates	 ? that	 ? managers	 ?frequently	 ? do	 ?make	 ? change	 ? happen	 ? in	 ? their	 ? organizations	 ? (Fernandez	 ? and	 ? Rainey	 ?2006).	 ?	 ?	 ?(Benn,	 ?Dunphy,	 ? and	 ?Griffiths	 ? 2006)	 ? emphasized	 ? the	 ? importance	 ? of	 ? leadership	 ? and	 ?the	 ? roles	 ? and	 ? strategies	 ? that	 ? corporate	 ? change	 ? agents	 ? can	 ? employ	 ? to	 ? bring	 ? about	 ?both	 ?incremental	 ?and	 ?transformational	 ?change.	 ?They	 ?proposed	 ?an	 ?integrated	 ?phase	 ?model	 ?to	 ?better	 ?understand	 ?how	 ?organizations	 ?move	 ?from	 ?compliance	 ?modes	 ?to	 ?the	 ?	 ? 21	 ?attainment	 ? of	 ? strategic	 ? sustainability	 ? and	 ? beyond	 ? to	 ? the	 ? 'ideal'	 ? or	 ? sustaining	 ?corporation.	 ?The	 ? range	 ?of	 ?potential	 ? change	 ?agents	 ? includes	 ? internal	 ? change	 ?agents	 ?such	 ? as	 ? board	 ? members,	 ? CEOs,	 ? managers	 ? and	 ? professionals	 ? in	 ? staff	 ? roles,	 ? while	 ?external	 ? change	 ? agents	 ? include	 ?politicians	 ? and	 ?bureaucrats,	 ? investors,	 ? consultants,	 ?suppliers	 ? and	 ? other	 ? key	 ? stakeholders	 ? such	 ? as	 ? community	 ? groups,	 ? regulators	 ? and	 ?consumers	 ? (Dunphy	 ?2007).	 ? Significant	 ? shifts	 ? from	 ?one	 ?phase	 ? to	 ? another	 ? are	 ? often	 ?triggered	 ? by	 ? changes	 ? such	 ? as	 ? the	 ? appointment	 ? of	 ? new	 ? senior	 ? management,	 ?stakeholder	 ? pressure,	 ? new	 ? legislation	 ? and	 ? economic	 ? fluctuations,	 ? as	 ? well	 ? as	 ?influenced	 ?by	 ?the	 ?presence	 ?of	 ?a	 ?learning	 ?culture	 ?and	 ?internal	 ?or	 ?external	 ?networking	 ?capabilities	 ?and	 ?structures	 ?(Benn,	 ?Dunphy,	 ?and	 ?Griffiths	 ?2006).	 ?	 ?Public	 ?sector	 ?studies	 ?offer	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?the	 ?critical	 ?role	 ?that	 ?public	 ?managers	 ?play	 ?in	 ?bringing	 ? about	 ? the	 ? kind	 ? of	 ? major	 ? organizational	 ? change	 ? required	 ? in	 ? climate	 ?mitigation	 ?(Fernandez	 ?and	 ?Rainey	 ?2006).	 ?Fernandez	 ?and	 ?Rainey	 ?2006	 ?discerns	 ?from	 ?the	 ? existing	 ? body	 ? of	 ? research	 ? a	 ? consensus	 ? that	 ? change	 ? leaders	 ? and	 ? change	 ?participants	 ?should	 ?pay	 ?special	 ?attention	 ?to	 ?eight	 ?factors	 ?such	 ?as	 ??ensure	 ?the	 ?need?,	 ??provide	 ? a	 ? plan?,	 ? build	 ? both	 ? top	 ? management	 ? and	 ? external	 ? support,	 ? ?provide	 ?resources?,	 ? ?institutionalize	 ? change?.	 ? Researchers	 ? have	 ? also	 ? noted	 ? public	 ? sector	 ?leaders?	 ? efforts	 ? to	 ? take	 ? advantage	 ? of	 ? mandates,	 ? political	 ? windows	 ? of	 ? opportunity,	 ?and	 ?external	 ?influences	 ?to	 ?verify	 ?and	 ?communicate	 ?the	 ?need	 ?for	 ?change.	 ?	 ?	 ?As	 ?to	 ?how	 ?public	 ?organizations	 ?have	 ?responded	 ?to	 ?the	 ?challenges	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?specifically,	 ? the	 ?public	 ?management	 ?literature	 ?is	 ?scant	 ?(Ball	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2009).	 ?One	 ?study	 ?(Nilsson,	 ?von	 ?Borgstede,	 ?and	 ?Biel	 ?2004)	 ?examined	 ?how	 ?values,	 ?organizational	 ?goals	 ?and	 ? norms	 ? influence	 ?willingness	 ? to	 ? accept	 ? climate	 ? change	 ? policy	 ?measures	 ?within	 ?organizations.	 ?The	 ?results	 ?showed	 ?that	 ?for	 ?decision	 ?makers	 ?in	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector,	 ?but	 ?not	 ? in	 ? the	 ? private	 ? sector,	 ? environmental	 ? values	 ? were	 ? important	 ? determinants	 ? of	 ?willingness	 ?to	 ?accept	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?policy	 ?measures.	 ?	 ?	 ? 22	 ?2.3	 ? Environmental	 ?Intervention	 ?Approaches	 ?2.3.1	 ? Introduction	 ?This	 ?section	 ?looks	 ?at	 ?the	 ?main	 ?categories	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?intervention	 ?approaches	 ?used	 ?by	 ?governments	 ?to	 ?spur	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?action	 ?on	 ?the	 ?part	 ?of	 ?organizations.	 ?As	 ?pointed	 ?out	 ?by	 ?Funtowicz	 ?and	 ?Ravetz,	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?most	 ?challenging	 ?environmental	 ?problems	 ?that	 ?the	 ?world	 ?is	 ?now	 ?confronting	 ?have	 ?common	 ?features	 ?that	 ?distinguish	 ?them	 ?from	 ?traditional	 ?scientific	 ?problems.	 ?Given	 ? the	 ?universal	 ? scale	 ?and	 ? long-??term	 ?nature	 ? of	 ? their	 ? impact,	 ? these	 ? problems	 ? are	 ? characterized	 ? by	 ? uncertain	 ? facts,	 ?disputed	 ? values,	 ? high	 ? stakes	 ? and	 ? urgent	 ? need	 ? for	 ? decisions.	 ? For	 ? these	 ? problems,	 ?science	 ? usually	 ? cannot	 ? provide	 ? well-??founded	 ? theories	 ? for	 ? explanation	 ? and	 ?prediction,	 ?so	 ?rational	 ?and	 ?correct	 ?policy	 ?decisions	 ?do	 ?not	 ?automatically	 ?follow	 ?from	 ?the	 ? facts	 ?discovered	 ?by	 ?science.	 ?As	 ?such,	 ?a	 ? ?post-??normal?	 ?approach	 ? to	 ?science,	 ?built	 ?on	 ? recognition	 ?of	 ? the	 ? legitimacy	 ?of	 ?different	 ?perspectives	 ? and	 ?ways	 ?of	 ? knowing,	 ? is	 ?more	 ?appropriate	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?the	 ?uncertainties	 ?in	 ?knowledge	 ?and	 ?values	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?produce	 ? a	 ? sound	 ?basis	 ? for	 ? policy	 ? (Funtowicz	 ? and	 ?Ravetz	 ?1993).	 ? The	 ?notion	 ? that	 ? a	 ?complex	 ?systems	 ?problem	 ?such	 ?as	 ?global	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?requires	 ?solutions	 ?gleaned	 ?from	 ? a	 ? plurality	 ? of	 ? perspectives	 ? (Gallop?n	 ? et	 ? al.	 ? 2001)	 ? therefore	 ? underlies	 ? this	 ?examination	 ?of	 ?theories	 ?and	 ?empirical	 ?evidence.	 ?	 ?The	 ? impact	 ? of	 ? government	 ? environmental	 ? intervention,	 ? including	 ? climate	 ? change	 ?policies,	 ?on	 ?private	 ?sector	 ?organizations	 ?has	 ?been	 ?keenly	 ?studied	 ?over	 ?the	 ?years.	 ?In	 ?contrast,	 ??the	 ?public	 ?management	 ?literature	 ?is	 ?notable	 ?in	 ?that	 ?it	 ?contains	 ?virtually	 ?no	 ?academic	 ? analysis	 ? or	 ? debate	 ? regarding	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? carbon	 ? neutrality	 ? or	 ? climate	 ?change	 ? strategies?	 ? (Ball	 ? et	 ? al.	 ? 2009).	 ? Assuming	 ? that	 ? experience	 ? in	 ? private	 ?organizations	 ?may	 ?hold	 ?some	 ?useful	 ?lessons	 ?for	 ?public	 ?organizations,	 ?this	 ?literature	 ?review	 ?will	 ?examine	 ?studies	 ?of	 ?both	 ?private	 ?and	 ?public	 ?organizations.	 ? Intervention	 ?approaches	 ?can	 ?be	 ?broadly	 ?classified	 ?as	 ?mandatory,	 ?voluntary	 ?or	 ?a	 ?mix	 ?of	 ?both.	 ?For	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector,	 ?we	 ?will	 ?pay	 ?special	 ?attention	 ?to	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?mandates.	 ?	 ? 23	 ?Environmental	 ?intervention	 ?by	 ?governments	 ?has	 ?taken	 ?many	 ?forms	 ?since	 ?the	 ?rise	 ?of	 ?the	 ? environmental	 ? movement	 ? in	 ? the	 ? 1960s.	 ? In	 ? more	 ? recent	 ? years,	 ? the	 ? academic	 ?literature	 ? has	 ? documented	 ? a	 ? general	 ? shift	 ? or	 ? at	 ? least	 ? an	 ? expressed	 ? preference	 ? by	 ?many	 ?governments	 ?to	 ?move	 ?away	 ?from	 ?a	 ??command	 ?and	 ?control?	 ?approach	 ?towards	 ?a	 ? plurality	 ? of	 ? alternative	 ? or	 ? ?new?	 ? approaches	 ? ranging	 ? from	 ? market-??based	 ? to	 ?management-??based	 ? interventions	 ?and	 ?voluntary	 ?efforts.	 ?According	 ? to	 ? some,	 ? this	 ? is	 ?reflective	 ? of	 ? a	 ? larger	 ? movement	 ? from	 ? policies	 ? based	 ? mainly	 ? on	 ? a	 ? positivist	 ?worldview	 ?that	 ?assumes	 ??scientific	 ?premises	 ?are	 ?provable	 ?and	 ?that	 ?rigid	 ?technology-??based	 ? instruments	 ? will	 ? be	 ? effective?	 ? (Funtowicz	 ? and	 ? Ravetz	 ? 1993;	 ? Fiorino	 ? 1999),	 ?towards	 ? a	 ? reflexive,	 ? post-??modern	 ? or	 ? even	 ? post-??normal	 ? approach	 ? that	 ? is	 ? more	 ?accommodating	 ?of	 ?multiple	 ?viewpoints	 ? (Funtowicz	 ?and	 ?Ravetz	 ?1993;	 ?Gunningham	 ?and	 ?Sinclair	 ?1999)	 ?and	 ?which	 ?adopts	 ?a	 ?complex-??systemic	 ?approach	 ? that	 ? takes	 ? into	 ?account	 ?linkages,	 ?relationships	 ?and	 ?context	 ?(Gallop?n	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?2.3.2	 ? Command	 ?and	 ?Control	 ?Approach	 ?The	 ? command	 ? and	 ? control	 ? (CAC)	 ? approach	 ? to	 ? environmental	 ? regulation	 ? has	 ? been	 ?credited	 ?with	 ?much	 ? of	 ? the	 ? success	 ? in	 ? environmental	 ? protection	 ? in	 ? the	 ? 1960s	 ? and	 ?1970s.	 ?This	 ?approach	 ?is	 ?an	 ?expression	 ?of	 ?bureaucratic	 ?rationality,	 ?which	 ?is	 ?based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?notion	 ?that	 ?the	 ?problems	 ?of	 ?modern	 ?society	 ?may	 ?be	 ?solved	 ?through	 ?the	 ?neutral	 ?application	 ? of	 ? technical	 ? expertise	 ? (Fiorino	 ? 2006).	 ? It	 ? has	 ? ?the	 ? virtues	 ? of	 ? high	 ?dependability	 ?and	 ?predictability	 ?(if	 ?adequately	 ?enforced)?	 ?(Gunningham	 ?and	 ?Sinclair	 ?1999).	 ?Under	 ?this	 ?approach,	 ?developed	 ?country	 ?governments	 ?created	 ?environmental	 ?ministries	 ?that	 ?set	 ?uniform	 ?regulatory	 ?requirements	 ?or	 ?standards	 ?that	 ?specified	 ?the	 ?method,	 ?and	 ?sometimes	 ?the	 ?actual	 ?equipment,	 ?for	 ?particular	 ?industries	 ?or	 ?firms.	 ?The	 ?resulting	 ? technology-??based	 ? regulations	 ? secured	 ? significant	 ? reductions	 ? in	 ?environmental	 ?hazards	 ? in	 ?spite	 ?of	 ?population	 ?and	 ?consumption	 ? increases	 ? (Driesen	 ?2010).	 ? In	 ?some	 ?cases,	 ?regulators	 ?set	 ?a	 ?uniform	 ?performance	 ?standard	 ?or	 ? target	 ? for	 ?firms,	 ?while	 ?allowing	 ?some	 ?latitude	 ?in	 ?how	 ?this	 ?target	 ?is	 ?met	 ?(Stavins	 ?2003).	 ?	 ?	 ? 24	 ?In	 ?the	 ?1980s,	 ?governance	 ?philosophies	 ?began	 ?to	 ?shift	 ?around	 ?the	 ?world,	 ?especially	 ?in	 ?English	 ?speaking	 ?countries,	 ?with	 ?free	 ?markets	 ?and	 ?economic	 ?efficiency	 ?increasingly	 ?valued	 ? as	 ? major	 ? goals	 ? (Driesen	 ? 2010).	 ? Against	 ? this	 ? backdrop,	 ? critics	 ? see	 ? CAC	 ?regulation	 ? as	 ? having	 ? reached	 ? its	 ? limits	 ? in	 ? effectiveness,	 ? being	 ? rigid	 ? (Bardach	 ? and	 ?Kagan	 ?1982)	 ?and	 ?unresponsive	 ?to	 ?the	 ?needs	 ?of	 ?the	 ?economy	 ?and	 ?industries	 ?(Fiorino	 ?1996;	 ? Gunningham	 ? 2007).	 ? In	 ? particular,	 ? environmental	 ? regulations	 ? have	 ? been	 ?singled	 ? out	 ? as	 ? examples	 ? of	 ? excessive	 ? regulation,	 ? riddled	 ? with	 ? unreasonable	 ?requirements	 ?and	 ?heavy-??handed	 ?enforcement	 ?(Bardach	 ?and	 ?Kagan	 ?1982).	 ?CAC	 ?was	 ?also	 ? criticized	 ? for	 ? forcing	 ? firms	 ? to	 ? take	 ? on	 ? similar	 ? shares	 ? of	 ? the	 ? environmental	 ?burden,	 ? regardless	 ? of	 ? the	 ? cost	 ? of	 ? abatement.	 ? This	 ? is	 ? seen	 ? as	 ? not	 ? cost-??effective,	 ?especially	 ? where	 ? there	 ? is	 ? significant	 ? heterogeneity	 ? of	 ? costs,	 ? which	 ? is	 ? a	 ? common	 ?feature	 ? of	 ? pollution	 ? abatement	 ? and	 ? of	 ? climate	 ? change	 ? mitigation	 ? (Stavins	 ? 2011).	 ?Another	 ?complaint	 ?was	 ?that	 ?inaccurate	 ?ex-??ante	 ?estimation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?costs	 ?of	 ?compliance	 ?might	 ?have	 ?affected	 ?the	 ?stringency	 ?of	 ?regulation,	 ?though	 ?(Harrington,	 ?Morgenstern,	 ?and	 ? Nelson	 ? 2000)	 ? found	 ? empirically	 ? that	 ? economic	 ? incentives	 ? or	 ? market-??based	 ?regulations	 ? (Please	 ? see	 ? the	 ? next	 ? section)	 ? were	 ? just	 ? as	 ? susceptible	 ? to	 ? such	 ?inaccuracies	 ?as	 ?CAC;	 ?perhaps	 ?more	 ?so	 ?when	 ?unanticipated	 ?technological	 ?innovations	 ?were	 ?not	 ?factored	 ?in.	 ?	 ?	 ?There	 ?was	 ? therefore	 ?much	 ? interest	 ? in	 ?moving	 ? toward	 ? a	 ? regulatory	 ? system	 ? that	 ? is	 ?more	 ?performance-??based	 ?and	 ? tailors	 ? regulation	 ? to	 ? the	 ?particular	 ? characteristics	 ?of	 ?an	 ? industry	 ? sector	 ? or	 ? facility	 ? (Fiorino	 ? 1996),	 ? thus	 ? giving	 ? firms	 ? the	 ? flexibility	 ? to	 ?achieve	 ? those	 ? results	 ? in	 ? a	 ? cost-??effective	 ?manner	 ? (Coglianese,	 ? Nash,	 ? and	 ? Olmstead	 ?2003).	 ? However,	 ? whether	 ? performance-??based	 ? regulation	 ? is	 ? the	 ? appropriate	 ?approach	 ?depends	 ?on	 ?the	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?the	 ?problem	 ?and	 ?certain	 ?conditions.	 ?Among	 ?the	 ?problems	 ? with	 ? performance-??based	 ? regulations	 ? is	 ? vagueness	 ? of	 ? performance	 ?standards,	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?expertise	 ?on	 ?the	 ?part	 ?of	 ?enforcers	 ?and	 ?difficulties	 ?in	 ?observing	 ?or	 ?predicting	 ? results	 ? that	 ?make	 ? accountability	 ? for	 ? results	 ? a	 ? particularly	 ? thorny	 ? issue	 ?(May	 ? 2003).	 ? There	 ? are	 ? also	 ? very	 ? few	 ? empirical	 ? studies	 ? aimed	 ? at	 ? measuring	 ? the	 ?effectiveness	 ? of	 ? performance-??based	 ? standards,	 ? especially	 ? in	 ? comparison	 ? with	 ? the	 ?	 ? 25	 ?effectiveness	 ? of	 ? other	 ? regulatory	 ? instruments	 ? (Coglianese,	 ? Nash,	 ? and	 ? Olmstead	 ?2003).	 ? An	 ? exception	 ? is	 ? (Harrington,	 ? Morgenstern,	 ? and	 ? Sterner	 ? 2004),	 ? which	 ? is	 ?elaborated	 ?in	 ?the	 ?next	 ?section.	 ?	 ?2.3.3	 ? Market-??Based	 ?Approach	 ?A	 ? popular	 ? alternative	 ? to	 ? CAC	 ? is	 ? the	 ? use	 ? of	 ? instruments	 ? that	 ? influence	 ? behavior	 ?through	 ?market	 ? signals	 ? rather	 ? than	 ? through	 ?explicit	 ?directives	 ? regarding	 ?pollution	 ?control	 ? levels	 ? or	 ? methods.	 ? Market-??based	 ? interventions	 ? may	 ? be	 ? mandatory	 ? or	 ?voluntary.	 ? Mandatory	 ? interventions	 ? include	 ? imposition	 ? of	 ? pollution	 ? charges	 ? and	 ?tradeable	 ? permits,	 ? while	 ? some	 ? product	 ? labelling	 ? and	 ? reporting	 ? programs	 ?may	 ? be	 ?voluntary	 ?in	 ?nature.	 ?	 ?In	 ? theory,	 ? if	 ? properly	 ? designed	 ? and	 ? implemented,	 ? market-??based	 ? instruments	 ?provide	 ?powerful	 ? incentives	 ? for	 ? the	 ? greatest	 ? reduction	 ? in	 ?pollution	 ?by	 ? those	 ? firms	 ?that	 ? can	 ? achieve	 ? these	 ? reductions	 ? most	 ? cheaply.	 ? However,	 ? the	 ? performance	 ? of	 ?market-??based	 ? instruments	 ? is	 ? ?mixed?,	 ? and	 ? ?they	 ? have	 ? not	 ? always	 ? performed	 ? as	 ?anticipated?	 ? (Stavins	 ? 2003).	 ? An	 ? empirical	 ? study	 ? (Harrington,	 ? Morgenstern,	 ? and	 ?Sterner	 ? 2004)	 ? was	 ? conducted	 ? where	 ? 6	 ? pairs	 ? of	 ? CAC	 ? and	 ? market-??based	 ?environmental	 ? instruments	 ? adopted	 ? in	 ? the	 ? United	 ? States	 ? and	 ? Europe	 ? were	 ?systematically	 ? compared	 ? in	 ? terms	 ? of	 ? their	 ? actual	 ? performance	 ? in	 ? addressing	 ? 6	 ?environmental	 ? problems.	 ? Both	 ? approaches	 ? were	 ? found	 ? to	 ? work,	 ? in	 ? the	 ? sense	 ? of	 ?achieving	 ? their	 ? goals,	 ? and	 ? despite	 ? the	 ? perceived	 ? stringency	 ? of	 ? CAC,	 ? pollution	 ?abatement	 ?was	 ? just	 ?as	 ?high	 ?when	 ?market-??based	 ? instruments	 ?were	 ?used.	 ?Generally	 ?market-??based	 ?instruments	 ?were	 ?more	 ?efficient,	 ?in	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?achieving	 ?a	 ?given	 ?level	 ?of	 ?environmental	 ?protection	 ?at	 ?lower	 ?cost	 ?to	 ?the	 ?community	 ?as	 ?a	 ?whole,	 ?partly	 ?because	 ?they	 ?provide	 ?greater	 ?incentives	 ?for	 ?innovation	 ?over	 ?time.	 ?This	 ?study	 ?also	 ?found	 ?that	 ?almost	 ? all	 ? of	 ? the	 ? programmes	 ? studied	 ? contained	 ? a	 ? mix	 ? of	 ? market-??based	 ? and	 ? CAC	 ?instruments,	 ?although	 ?there	 ?was	 ?wide	 ?variation	 ?in	 ?the	 ?relative	 ?emphasis.	 ?	 ?	 ? 26	 ?In	 ?a	 ?study	 ?that	 ?compared	 ?the	 ?propensity	 ?of	 ?different	 ?U.S.	 ?states	 ?to	 ?employ	 ?economic	 ?incentives	 ? in	 ? the	 ? area	 ? of	 ? climate	 ? change,	 ? (Ciocirlan	 ? 2008)	 ? reveals	 ? that	 ? states?	 ?adoption	 ? of	 ? climate	 ? policies	 ?may	 ? be	 ? related	 ? to	 ? a	 ? host	 ? of	 ? different	 ? reasons	 ? such	 ? as	 ?energy	 ?efficiency,	 ?interest	 ?group	 ?struggles,	 ?dependence	 ?on	 ?natural	 ?gas,	 ?availability	 ?of	 ?resources,	 ? public	 ? opinion	 ? or,	 ? simply,	 ? the	 ? policy	 ? activity	 ? of	 ? neighboring	 ? states.	 ? The	 ?effectiveness	 ? of	 ? market-??based	 ? instruments	 ? also	 ? depend	 ? on	 ? the	 ? level	 ? set	 ? by	 ?government;	 ? for	 ? example,	 ? relatively	 ? few	 ? countries	 ? have	 ? implemented	 ? sufficiently	 ?high	 ?pollution	 ?taxes	 ?to	 ?motivate	 ?substantial	 ?emission	 ?reductions	 ?(Driesen	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?Another	 ? potentially	 ? important	 ? cause	 ? of	 ? the	 ? mixed	 ? performance	 ? of	 ? market-??based	 ?approaches	 ?is	 ?that	 ?many	 ?firms	 ?are	 ?simply	 ?not	 ?well	 ?equipped	 ?internally	 ?to	 ?make	 ?the	 ?decisions	 ?necessary	 ? to	 ? fully	 ?utilize	 ? these	 ? instruments.	 ?Most	 ? firms	 ?continue	 ? to	 ?have	 ?structures	 ?and	 ?personnel	 ?that	 ?are	 ?experienced	 ?in	 ?minimizing	 ?the	 ?costs	 ?of	 ?complying	 ?with	 ?conventional	 ?regulation,	 ?but	 ?not	 ? in	 ?making	 ?the	 ?strategic	 ?decisions	 ?allowed	 ?by	 ?market-??based	 ?instruments	 ?(Stavins	 ?2003).	 ?	 ?2.3.4	 ? Management-??Based	 ?Intervention	 ?Coglianese	 ?and	 ?Lazer	 ?introduced	 ?the	 ?term	 ??management-??based?	 ?intervention,	 ?which	 ?they	 ? distinguished	 ? from	 ? technology-??based	 ? and	 ? performance-??based	 ? regulation,	 ? in	 ?that	 ? the	 ? former	 ? does	 ? not	 ? specify	 ? the	 ? technologies	 ? to	 ? be	 ? used,	 ? nor	 ? does	 ? it	 ? require	 ?specific	 ? outputs	 ? in	 ? terms	 ? of	 ? social	 ? goals.	 ? Rather,	 ? a	 ? management-??based	 ? approach	 ?requires	 ?firms	 ?to	 ?engage	 ?in	 ?their	 ?own	 ?planning	 ?and	 ?internal	 ?rulemaking	 ?efforts	 ?that	 ?aim	 ?toward	 ?the	 ?achievement	 ?of	 ?specific	 ?public	 ?goals	 ?(Coglianese	 ?and	 ?Lazer	 ?2003).	 ?	 ?Management-??based	 ? approaches	 ? hold	 ? a	 ? number	 ? of	 ? potential	 ? advantages	 ? over	 ?traditional	 ?regulation.	 ?They	 ?place	 ?responsibility	 ?for	 ?decision-??making	 ?with	 ?those	 ?who	 ?possess	 ?the	 ?most	 ? information	 ?about	 ?risks	 ?and	 ?potential	 ?control	 ?methods.	 ?They	 ?can	 ?achieve	 ?greater	 ?compliance	 ?than	 ?with	 ?government-??imposed	 ?rules,	 ?help	 ?mitigate	 ?the	 ?	 ? 27	 ?problems	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?limited	 ?governmental	 ?enforcement	 ?resources	 ?and	 ?enable	 ?firms	 ?to	 ?experiment	 ?and	 ?seek	 ?out	 ?better,	 ?more	 ?innovative	 ?and	 ?less	 ?costly	 ?solutions	 ?(Coglianese	 ? and	 ? Lazer	 ? 2003).	 ? Management-??based	 ? interventions	 ? include	 ? both	 ?mandatory	 ? management-??based	 ? regulation	 ? such	 ? as	 ? environmental	 ? management	 ?systems	 ? and	 ? risk	 ? management	 ? planning,	 ? and	 ? voluntary	 ? management-??based	 ?incentives	 ?such	 ?as	 ?information	 ?disclosure.	 ?	 ?Theoretical	 ? analysis	 ? suggests	 ? that	 ? management-??based	 ? intervention	 ? is	 ? most	 ?appealing	 ? when	 ? the	 ? population	 ? of	 ? regulated	 ? entities	 ? is	 ? heterogeneous	 ? and	 ? the	 ?capacity	 ?of	 ?the	 ?regulator	 ?to	 ?assess	 ?output	 ?measures	 ?is	 ?limited	 ?(Coglianese	 ?and	 ?Lazer	 ?2003).	 ?However,	 ? the	 ?question	 ? remains	 ?whether	 ? such	 ? intervention	 ? can	 ? ensure	 ? that	 ?firms	 ? adequately	 ? internalize	 ? social	 ? goals	 ? in	 ? their	 ? planning	 ? processes	 ? and	 ? then	 ?implement	 ? these	 ? plans.	 ? Management-??based	 ? strategies	 ? encourage	 ? or	 ? require	 ?management	 ? practices,	 ? but	 ? not	 ? necessarily	 ? improvements	 ? in	 ? environmental	 ?outcomes.	 ? So	 ? it	 ? is	 ? possible	 ? that	 ? some	 ? firms	 ? will	 ? create	 ? plans,	 ? documents	 ? and	 ?procedures	 ?that	 ? look	 ?good	 ?on	 ?paper	 ?but	 ?do	 ?not	 ?reflect	 ? their	 ?day-??to-??day	 ?operations	 ?(Coglianese	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?The	 ?U.S.	 ?experience	 ?discussed	 ?in	 ?(Coglianese	 ?and	 ?Lazer	 ?2003)	 ?indicates	 ?that	 ?in	 ?some	 ?cases,	 ?management-??based	 ?policy	 ?strategies	 ?can	 ?lead	 ?to	 ? improvements	 ? in	 ? industry?s	 ?environmental	 ?performance,	 ?but	 ?not	 ? in	 ?others.	 ? Similarly,	 ? (Bennear	 ?2007)	 ? suggests	 ?that	 ? management-??based	 ? regulation	 ? for	 ? toxic	 ? chemical	 ? use	 ? and	 ? release	 ? has	 ? had	 ? a	 ?measurable	 ? positive	 ? effect	 ? on	 ? the	 ? environmental	 ? performance	 ? of	 ? manufacturing	 ?plants	 ? during	 ? the	 ? early	 ? 1990s.	 ? There	 ? is	 ? also	 ? evidence	 ? to	 ? suggest	 ? that	 ? mandates	 ?backed	 ?up	 ?by	 ?government	 ?or	 ?private	 ?sector	 ?sanctions,	 ?requiring	 ?firms	 ?to	 ?engage	 ?in	 ?specific	 ? management	 ? practices,	 ? appear	 ? to	 ? have	 ? much	 ? greater	 ? impact	 ? on	 ? firms?	 ?performance	 ? than	 ? strategies	 ? that	 ? merely	 ? encourage	 ? firms	 ? to	 ? improve	 ? their	 ?environmental	 ?management	 ? (Coglianese	 ? and	 ?Nash	 ? 2006;	 ? Coglianese	 ? 2008).	 ? There	 ?remains	 ?a	 ?need	 ?for	 ?further	 ?empirical	 ?research	 ?on	 ?the	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?management-??based	 ?	 ? 28	 ?strategies,	 ? especially	 ? to	 ? learn	 ? whether	 ? they	 ? can	 ? achieve	 ? meaningful	 ? benefits	 ? for	 ?society	 ?over	 ?the	 ?long	 ?term	 ?(Coglianese	 ?2008).	 ?	 ?2.3.5	 ? Voluntary	 ?Approaches	 ?In	 ? recent	 ?years,	 ? there	 ?has	 ?been	 ?a	 ? lot	 ?of	 ? interest	 ? in	 ? ?corporate	 ?environmentalism?	 ??	 ?environmental	 ?initiatives	 ?undertaken	 ?by	 ?businesses,	 ?that	 ?have	 ?gone	 ?beyond	 ?what	 ?is	 ?required	 ? by	 ? law	 ? or	 ? regulation	 ? (Bansal	 ? and	 ? Roth	 ? 2000;	 ? Lyon	 ? and	 ? Maxwell	 ? 2004).	 ?There	 ?have	 ?also	 ?been	 ?a	 ?growing	 ?number	 ?of	 ?industry-??led	 ?programs	 ?for	 ?self-??regulation	 ?by	 ?firms	 ?and	 ?trade	 ?associations	 ?(Khanna	 ?2001).	 ?At	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time,	 ?governments	 ?have	 ?increasingly	 ? turned	 ? to	 ? programs	 ? in	 ? the	 ? form	 ? of	 ? public	 ? voluntary	 ? programmes	 ?(PVPs),	 ?or	 ?negotiated	 ?agreements	 ?between	 ?regulator	 ?and	 ?firms.	 ?Environmental	 ?PVPs	 ?like	 ? Energy	 ? Star	 ? in	 ? the	 ? U.S.	 ? involve	 ? government	 ? offers	 ? of	 ? positive	 ? publicity	 ? and	 ?technical	 ? assistance	 ? to	 ? firms	 ? that	 ? reach	 ? certain	 ? environmental	 ? goals.	 ? Among	 ? the	 ?areas	 ?with	 ?the	 ?most	 ?PVP	 ?activity	 ?are	 ?pollution	 ?prevention	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?(Lyon	 ?and	 ?Maxwell	 ? 2007).	 ? These	 ? efforts	 ? are	 ? partly	 ? a	 ? response	 ? to	 ? the	 ? escalating	 ? political	 ?and	 ? resource	 ? costs	 ? of	 ? creating	 ? and	 ? enforcing	 ? traditional	 ? command-??and-??control	 ?regulations	 ? (Lyon	 ? and	 ? Maxwell	 ? 2004)	 ? and	 ? partly	 ? to	 ? substitute	 ? a	 ? co-??operative	 ?approach	 ? for	 ? the	 ? prevailing	 ? adversary	 ? relationship	 ? between	 ? industry	 ? and	 ?government	 ?(Khanna	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ? primary	 ? problem	 ?with	 ? self-??regulation	 ? and	 ?meta-??regulation	 ? (where	 ? regulators	 ?seek	 ? to	 ? induce	 ? targets	 ? to	 ? develop	 ? their	 ? own	 ? internal,	 ? self-??regulatory	 ? responses	 ? to	 ?public	 ? problems)	 ? is	 ? that	 ? even	 ? though	 ?businesses	 ?have	 ?better	 ? information,	 ? they	 ?do	 ?not	 ? necessarily	 ? have	 ? better	 ? incentives	 ? to	 ? find	 ? solutions	 ? to	 ? public	 ? problems	 ?(Coglianese	 ?and	 ?Mendelson	 ?2010).	 ?These	 ?voluntary	 ?initiatives	 ?also	 ?do	 ?not	 ?require	 ?or	 ?guarantee	 ? an	 ? improvement	 ? in	 ? environmental	 ? performance	 ? and	 ? lack	 ? any	 ? sanctions	 ?for	 ? non-??improvement	 ? (Khanna	 ? 2001).	 ? Studies	 ? have	 ? shown	 ? that	 ? traditional	 ?regulation	 ? is	 ? more	 ? effective	 ? than	 ? the	 ? voluntary	 ? approach	 ? alone	 ? (May	 ? 2005).	 ?	 ? 29	 ?Moreover,	 ?although	 ?studies	 ?on	 ?a	 ?diverse	 ?set	 ?of	 ?voluntary	 ?programs	 ?demonstrate	 ?that	 ?at	 ? least	 ? some	 ? firms	 ? are	 ? motivated	 ? to	 ? act	 ? voluntarily	 ? for	 ? various	 ? reasons,	 ? related	 ?research	 ? has	 ? demonstrated	 ? the	 ? limitations	 ? of	 ? these	 ? programs	 ? by	 ? showing	 ? that	 ?participation	 ?by	 ? firms	 ? is	 ?uneven,	 ? the	 ? environmental	 ? improvements	 ? are	 ? sometimes	 ?limited,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?programs	 ?are	 ?difficult	 ?to	 ?sustain	 ?and	 ?expand	 ?beyond	 ?a	 ?core	 ?group	 ?of	 ?committed	 ?entities.	 ?Taken	 ?together,	 ? these	 ?studies	 ?suggest	 ?that	 ?voluntary	 ?programs	 ?have	 ?promise,	 ?but	 ?they	 ?are	 ?not	 ?a	 ?panacea	 ?(Khanna	 ?2001;	 ?May	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?	 ?Despite	 ? the	 ? fact	 ? that	 ? voluntary	 ? programs	 ? tend	 ? to	 ? be	 ?weak	 ? tools,	 ? some	 ? argue	 ? that	 ?they	 ? still	 ? have	 ? a	 ? role	 ? to	 ? play,	 ? for	 ? example,	 ?when	 ?political	 ? resistance	 ?makes	 ? strong	 ?action	 ?virtually	 ?impossible,	 ?or	 ?the	 ?costs	 ?or	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?action	 ?are	 ?poorly	 ?understood,	 ?or	 ?emissions	 ?sources	 ?are	 ?so	 ?numerous	 ?that	 ?monitoring	 ?them	 ?is	 ?prohibitively	 ?costly	 ?(Lyon	 ? and	 ? Maxwell	 ? 2004).	 ? In	 ? such	 ? cases,	 ? voluntary	 ? programs	 ? may	 ? be	 ? used	 ? as	 ? a	 ?complement	 ? to	 ? existing	 ? or	 ? forthcoming	 ? regulations,	 ? or	 ? as	 ? an	 ? alternative	 ?when	 ? the	 ?traditional	 ? legislative	 ? and	 ? regulatory	 ? approaches	 ? are	 ? not	 ? feasible	 ? (Khanna	 ? 2001;	 ?Lyon	 ?and	 ?Maxwell	 ?2007).	 ?	 ?2.3.6	 ? Regulation	 ?of	 ?Government	 ?This	 ?section	 ?focuses	 ?on	 ? literature	 ?regarding	 ?government	 ? interventions	 ? imposed	 ?on	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?itself.	 ?The	 ?rough	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?analogy	 ?to	 ?government?s	 ?regulation	 ?of	 ? private	 ? businesses	 ? has	 ? been	 ? termed	 ? arm?s-??length	 ? ?regulation	 ? of	 ? government?	 ?(Hood,	 ?James,	 ?and	 ?Scott	 ?2000).	 ?This	 ?regulation	 ?involves	 ?oversight	 ?of	 ?the	 ?government	 ?bureaucracy,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?other	 ?publicly	 ?owned	 ?and/or	 ?funded	 ?bodies,	 ?by	 ?other	 ?public	 ?agencies	 ?operating	 ?away	 ?from	 ?the	 ?direct	 ?line	 ?of	 ?command,	 ?with	 ?the	 ?overseers	 ?being	 ?given	 ?some	 ?authority	 ?or	 ?official	 ??mandate?	 ?over	 ?their	 ?charges.	 ?It	 ?is	 ?a	 ?form	 ?of	 ?steering	 ?or	 ? control	 ? system	 ? that	 ? involves	 ? a	 ? combination	 ? of	 ? information	 ? gathering,	 ? standard	 ?setting	 ?and	 ?attempts	 ?at	 ?behavior	 ?modification	 ?(Hood,	 ?James,	 ?and	 ?Scott	 ?2000).	 ?	 ?	 ? 30	 ?There	 ?is	 ?a	 ?developing	 ?literature	 ?that	 ?suggests	 ?regulation	 ?of	 ?government	 ?is	 ?growing	 ?in	 ? significance	 ? (Hood	 ? et	 ? al.	 ? 1999).	 ? Hood,	 ? James,	 ? and	 ? Scott	 ? 2000	 ? and	 ? James	 ? 2005	 ?noted	 ?that	 ?against	 ?a	 ?backdrop	 ?of	 ?substantial	 ?downsizing	 ?in	 ?overall	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?staff	 ?numbers,	 ?regulation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?United	 ?Kingdom	 ?government	 ?grew	 ?substantially	 ?over	 ?the	 ?twenty	 ? years	 ? to	 ? the	 ? mid-??1990s	 ? (during	 ? the	 ? ?New	 ? Public	 ? Management?	 ? era)	 ? and	 ?continued	 ? to	 ? increase,	 ? in	 ? terms	 ? of	 ? numbers	 ? of	 ? organizations,	 ? direct	 ? spending	 ? and	 ?staffing	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?other	 ?forms	 ?of	 ?control.	 ?This	 ? increasing	 ?interest	 ? in	 ?governments?	 ?own	 ? performance	 ? arises	 ? partly	 ? from	 ? a	 ? desire	 ? to	 ? address	 ? ?government	 ? failures?	 ?(James	 ?2005)	 ?and	 ?may	 ?perhaps	 ?be	 ?based	 ?on	 ?a	 ?belief	 ?that	 ?the	 ?government	 ?may	 ?have	 ?(or	 ?should	 ?have)	 ?better	 ?control	 ?over	 ?its	 ?own	 ?operations.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?More	 ?than	 ?3	 ?decades	 ?ago,	 ?Wilson	 ?and	 ?Rachal	 ?argued	 ?that	 ?the	 ?fundamental	 ?problem	 ?of	 ?government	 ?regulating	 ?itself	 ?had	 ?to	 ?do	 ?with	 ?issues	 ?of	 ?ownership.	 ??It	 ?is	 ?easier	 ?for	 ?a	 ?public	 ? agency	 ? to	 ? change	 ? the	 ? behavior	 ? of	 ? a	 ? private	 ? organization	 ? than	 ? of	 ? another	 ?public	 ?agency?	 ?because	 ??the	 ?private	 ?sector	 ?cannot	 ?deny	 ?the	 ?authority	 ?of	 ? the	 ?state?,	 ?while	 ? a	 ? government	 ? agency	 ? can	 ? and	 ? does	 ? deny	 ? the	 ? authority	 ? of	 ? another	 ? agency	 ?(Wilson	 ?and	 ?Rachal	 ?1977).	 ?(Lodge	 ?and	 ?Hood	 ?2010)	 ?found	 ?that	 ?many	 ?of	 ?the	 ?obstacles	 ?to	 ?effective	 ?regulation	 ?of	 ?government	 ?that	 ?were	 ?noted	 ?in	 ?Wilson	 ?and	 ?Rachal?s	 ?theory	 ?are	 ? still	 ? readily	 ? observable	 ? today,	 ? although	 ? there	 ? is	 ? a	 ? greater	 ? understanding	 ? and	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?ways	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?or	 ?get	 ?round	 ?these	 ?obstacles.	 ?	 ?To	 ?get	 ?a	 ?sense	 ?of	 ?how	 ?effectively	 ?environmental	 ?mandates	 ?on	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?have	 ?worked,	 ? the	 ? next	 ? two	 ? sections	 ? summarize	 ? the	 ? findings	 ? of	 ? selected	 ? studies	 ? on	 ? the	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?mandates	 ?for	 ?environmental	 ?protection.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?2.3.7	 ? National	 ?Environmental	 ?Policy	 ?Act	 ?(NEPA)	 ?Enacted	 ?in	 ?1969,	 ?NEPA	 ?was	 ?the	 ?first	 ?law	 ?in	 ?the	 ?U.S.	 ?to	 ?focus	 ?environmental	 ?concerns	 ?within	 ?a	 ?comprehensive	 ?national	 ?policy.	 ?A	 ?major	 ?goal	 ?of	 ?NEPA	 ?was	 ?to	 ?force	 ?agencies	 ?	 ? 31	 ?that	 ?had	 ?formerly	 ?focused	 ?too	 ?heavily	 ?on	 ?their	 ?primary	 ?missions,	 ?to	 ?also	 ?consider	 ?the	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?their	 ?actions	 ?on	 ?the	 ?environment.	 ?It	 ?has	 ?been	 ?hailed	 ?as	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?nation?s	 ?most	 ? important	 ? environmental	 ? laws	 ? and	 ? the	 ? U.S.	 ? was	 ? recognized	 ? as	 ? a	 ? leader	 ? in	 ?environmental	 ?management	 ?worldwide	 ? in	 ? large	 ?part	 ?because	 ?of	 ?NEPA	 ?(Council	 ?on	 ?Environmental	 ?Quality	 ?1997).	 ?	 ?	 ?A	 ?review	 ?done	 ?by	 ?the	 ?Council	 ?on	 ?Environmental	 ?Quality	 ?found	 ?that	 ?overall	 ?NEPA	 ?is	 ?a	 ?success.	 ? 	 ? It	 ? has	 ? made	 ? agencies	 ? take	 ? a	 ? hard	 ? look	 ? at	 ? the	 ? potential	 ? environmental	 ?consequences	 ? of	 ? their	 ? actions,	 ? and	 ? it	 ? has	 ? brought	 ? the	 ? public	 ? into	 ? the	 ? decision-??making	 ?process	 ?of	 ?federal	 ?agencies	 ?like	 ?no	 ?other	 ?statute	 ?(Council	 ?on	 ?Environmental	 ?Quality	 ?1997).	 ?The	 ?NEPA	 ?process	 ?had	 ?become	 ?institutionalized	 ?in	 ?federal	 ?agencies?	 ?standard	 ? operating	 ? procedures	 ? by	 ? the	 ? late	 ? 1970s	 ? and,	 ? unlike	 ? the	 ? situation	 ? before	 ?1970,	 ? environmental	 ? impacts	 ? are	 ? now	 ? considered	 ? in	 ? making	 ? natural	 ? resources	 ?decisions	 ? (Culhane	 ? 1990).	 ? NEPA	 ? forced	 ? agencies	 ? to	 ? employ	 ? specialists	 ? who	 ? are	 ?responsible	 ? for	 ? preparing	 ? environmental	 ? impact	 ? statements	 ? (EISs)	 ? and	 ? acting	 ?generally	 ?as	 ?environmental	 ?advocates	 ?in	 ?internal	 ?agency	 ?decision	 ?processes.	 ?Public	 ?participation	 ?also	 ?provided	 ?a	 ?new	 ?opportunity	 ?for	 ?environmental	 ?groups,	 ?concerned	 ?citizens,	 ?and	 ?individual	 ?scientists	 ?to	 ?influence	 ?agency	 ?decisions	 ?(Culhane	 ?1990).	 ?	 ?Critics,	 ?on	 ?the	 ?other	 ?hand,	 ? lament	 ?the	 ?burdensome	 ?procedural	 ? formalities	 ?and	 ?cost	 ?of	 ? the	 ? NEPA	 ? process,	 ? while	 ? ?accomplishing	 ? little	 ? or	 ? nothing	 ? of	 ? substance?	 ?(Karkkainen	 ? 2002).	 ? Although	 ? NEPA	 ? seems	 ? to	 ? have	 ? transformed	 ? the	 ? institutional	 ?landscape,	 ?bringing	 ?important	 ?and	 ?lasting	 ?changes	 ?to	 ?the	 ?way	 ?government	 ?operates,	 ?there	 ? is	 ? not	 ? much	 ? evidence	 ? that,	 ? in	 ? practice,	 ? the	 ? information	 ? revealed	 ? in	 ? EISs	 ?actually	 ? influences	 ?agency	 ?decision-??making	 ?(Karkkainen	 ?2002).	 ?Similarly,	 ?(Culhane	 ?1990)	 ?noted	 ?that	 ?there	 ?is	 ?still	 ?debate	 ?on	 ?whether	 ?an	 ?EIS's	 ?consideration	 ?of	 ?impacts	 ?is	 ?serious	 ? and	 ? acute,	 ? although	 ? its	 ? mere	 ? existence,	 ? even	 ? if	 ? it	 ? were	 ? just	 ? a	 ? procedural	 ?requirement,	 ?contrasts	 ?significantly	 ?with	 ?the	 ?pre-??1970	 ?situation.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 32	 ?Many	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?tried	 ?to	 ?evaluate	 ?whether	 ?NEPA	 ?has	 ?fundamentally	 ?changed	 ?the	 ?agency	 ?decision-??making	 ?process	 ?and	 ?influenced	 ?how	 ?they	 ?operate	 ?(Biber	 ?2009).	 ? In	 ?particular,	 ?principal-??agent	 ?theories	 ?have	 ?been	 ?used	 ?to	 ?explain	 ?agencies?	 ?motivations	 ?when	 ?responding	 ?to	 ?this	 ?environmental	 ?mandate.	 ?A	 ?principal	 ?(e.g.	 ?the	 ?U.S.	 ?Congress)	 ?is	 ?a	 ?party	 ?that	 ?delegates	 ?performance	 ?of	 ?a	 ?task	 ?to	 ?an	 ?agent	 ?(e.g.	 ?a	 ?federal	 ?government	 ?agency),	 ? usually	 ? because	 ? the	 ? principal	 ? is	 ? limited	 ? in	 ? its	 ? ability	 ? to	 ? perform	 ? the	 ? task	 ?directly	 ?by	 ?time,	 ?expertise,	 ?or	 ?other	 ?resources.	 ?The	 ?basic	 ?problems	 ?of	 ?any	 ?principal-??agent	 ? system	 ? are	 ? those	 ? of	 ? differing	 ? incentives	 ? and	 ? inadequate	 ? information	 ? (Biber	 ?2009).	 ?Biber	 ?established	 ?that	 ?these	 ?agencies	 ?often	 ?will	 ?not	 ?be	 ?able	 ?to	 ?overcome	 ?the	 ?challenges	 ? posed	 ? by	 ? conflicting	 ? multiple	 ? goals	 ? on	 ? their	 ? own,	 ? due	 ? to	 ? a	 ? range	 ? of	 ?constraints,	 ? including	 ? agency	 ? missions,	 ? historical	 ? inertia,	 ? the	 ? professional	 ?orientation	 ?of	 ?agency	 ?staff	 ?and	 ?other	 ?internal	 ?institutional	 ?incentives	 ?that	 ?are	 ?often	 ?crucial	 ? to	 ?the	 ?success	 ?of	 ?government	 ?agencies.	 ?The	 ?principals	 ?can	 ?employ	 ?different	 ?models	 ? to	 ? address	 ? this	 ? problem	 ? with	 ? their	 ? agents,	 ? e.g.	 ? ?agency	 ? as	 ? lobbyist?	 ? and	 ??agency	 ?as	 ?regulator?	 ?models.	 ?He	 ?concluded	 ?that	 ?the	 ?more	 ?stringent	 ?the	 ?inter-??agency	 ?monitoring	 ? is,	 ? the	 ? more	 ? effective	 ? regulation	 ? might	 ? be	 ? at	 ? achieving	 ? minimum	 ?compliance	 ?with	 ?undervalued	 ?goals,	 ?but	 ?with	 ?the	 ?consequence	 ?of	 ?greatly	 ?increasing	 ?transaction	 ?costs	 ?such	 ?as	 ?litigation	 ?(Biber	 ?2009).	 ?	 ?(Wichelman	 ?1976)	 ?points	 ?out	 ? that	 ?disagreement	 ?over	 ?NEPA?s	 ? actual	 ? and	 ?potential	 ?impact	 ? on	 ? agency	 ? decision-??making	 ? tends	 ? to	 ? gloss	 ? over	 ? the	 ? many	 ? political	 ? and	 ?practical	 ?differences	 ?that	 ?characterize	 ?the	 ?vast	 ?array	 ?of	 ?federal	 ?agencies,	 ?which	 ?differ	 ?markedly	 ?in	 ?power,	 ?purpose,	 ?and	 ?clientele.	 ?He	 ?found	 ?that	 ?generally	 ?the	 ?greater	 ?the	 ?perceived	 ? conflict	 ? between	 ? NEPA	 ? implementation	 ? activities	 ? and	 ? an	 ? agency's	 ? pre-??NEPA	 ? mandate,	 ? the	 ? more	 ? likely	 ? the	 ? agency	 ? was	 ? to	 ? go	 ? slowly	 ? and	 ? cautiously	 ? in	 ?implementing	 ?the	 ?Act.	 ?	 ?	 ?By	 ? examining	 ? the	 ? institutional	 ? changes	 ? made	 ? within	 ? agencies	 ? at	 ? each	 ? phase	 ? of	 ?implementing	 ?NEPA	 ? reforms,	 ? (Wichelman	 ? 1976)	 ?was	 ? able	 ? to	 ? highlight	 ? the	 ? critical	 ?	 ? 33	 ?factors	 ?that	 ?influenced	 ?the	 ?pace	 ?and	 ?extent	 ?of	 ?reform	 ?adopted	 ?by	 ?different	 ?agencies,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?provision	 ?of	 ?supplemental	 ?funding	 ?to	 ?agencies	 ?and	 ?specialized	 ?personnel	 ?to	 ?police	 ? compliance.	 ? He	 ? also	 ? highlighted	 ? the	 ? importance	 ? of	 ? continuing	 ? external	 ?oversight,	 ? establishment	 ? of	 ? new	 ? agency	 ? routines	 ? and	 ? learning	 ? processes	 ? to	 ? effect	 ?changes	 ? to	 ? the	 ? standard	 ? operating	 ? procedures	 ? and	 ? organizational	 ? structures,	 ? and	 ?ensure	 ? a	 ? pervasive	 ? integration	 ? of	 ? environmental	 ? values	 ? into	 ? the	 ? agencies?	 ? routine	 ?decision-??making	 ?activities.	 ?	 ?Another	 ? study	 ? that	 ? investigated	 ? federal	 ? agencies?	 ? response	 ? describes	 ? NEPA	 ? as	 ? an	 ??aspirational?	 ? command.	 ? ?Aspirational?	 ? commands	 ?are	 ? those	 ? that	 ?require	 ?or	 ?compel	 ?targeted	 ?agencies	 ?to	 ?cooperate	 ?in	 ?good	 ?faith	 ??	 ?to	 ??aspire?	 ??	 ?in	 ?implementing	 ?federal	 ?policies	 ? ?as	 ? best	 ? they	 ? can?	 ? (Henderson	 ? and	 ? Pearson	 ? 1978).	 ? NEPA	 ? directs	 ? federal	 ?agencies	 ? to	 ? interpret	 ? and	 ? administer	 ? ?to	 ? the	 ? fullest	 ? possible	 ? extent?	 ? their	 ? policies	 ?and	 ? regulations	 ? in	 ? accordance	 ? with	 ? its	 ? policy	 ? statement,	 ? making	 ? environmental	 ?protection	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?mandate	 ?of	 ?each	 ?federal	 ?agency.	 ?	 ?	 ?With	 ? respect	 ? to	 ? all	 ? four	 ? examples	 ? evaluated	 ? in	 ? their	 ? study,	 ? including	 ? NEPA,	 ?aspirational	 ?commands	 ?have	 ?limited	 ?effectiveness	 ?and	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?achieve	 ?the	 ?desired	 ?goals.	 ? Complex	 ? hierarchical	 ? organizations	 ? tend	 ? to	 ? respond	 ? to	 ? aspirational	 ?commands	 ? in	 ? ways	 ? which	 ? are	 ? more	 ? consistent	 ? with	 ? its	 ? standard	 ? operating	 ?procedures	 ? than	 ? with	 ? the	 ? values	 ? of	 ? either	 ? the	 ? commandeer	 ? or	 ? the	 ? individuals	 ?making	 ? up	 ? the	 ? organization.	 ? Further,	 ? in	 ? the	 ? light	 ? of	 ? their	 ? limited	 ? effectiveness,	 ? it	 ?would	 ? also	 ? seem	 ?misplaced	 ? to	 ? rely	 ? on	 ? aspirational	 ? commands	 ? to	 ? change	 ? attitudes	 ?toward	 ?environmental	 ?protection	 ?(Henderson	 ?and	 ?Pearson	 ?1978).	 ?	 ?Finally,	 ? with	 ? regard	 ? to	 ? organizational	 ? learning	 ? and	 ? institutionalization	 ? of	 ?environmental	 ?values	 ?through	 ?the	 ?interplay	 ?of	 ?internal	 ?and	 ?external	 ?factors,	 ?(Taylor	 ?1984)	 ? pointed	 ? to	 ? NEPA?s	 ? influence	 ? resulting	 ? in	 ? a	 ? large	 ? increase	 ? in	 ? the	 ? number	 ? of	 ?experts	 ? or	 ? environmental	 ? analysts	 ? employed	 ? within	 ? federal	 ? agencies,	 ? resources	 ?	 ? 34	 ?leveraged	 ?in	 ?environmental	 ?non-??governmental	 ?organizations	 ?including	 ?lawyers	 ?and	 ?scientists,	 ?and	 ?institutionalization	 ?of	 ?a	 ?greater	 ?sensitivity	 ?to	 ?environmental	 ?risks	 ?in	 ?the	 ? federal	 ? bureaucracy.	 ? This	 ? may	 ? serve	 ? as	 ? a	 ? model	 ? for	 ? regulating	 ? government	 ?organizations	 ? when	 ? complex	 ? policy	 ? tradeoffs	 ? make	 ? simple	 ? rules	 ? technically	 ?infeasible,	 ?yet	 ?the	 ?involvement	 ?of	 ?many	 ?agencies	 ?makes	 ?hierarchical	 ?reorganization	 ?into	 ?one	 ??superagency?	 ?politically	 ?undesirable	 ?(Taylor	 ?1984).	 ?Climate	 ?change	 ?would	 ?qualify	 ?as	 ?such	 ?a	 ?situation.	 ?	 ?	 ?2.3.8	 ? Unfunded	 ?Mandates	 ?There	 ?has	 ?also	 ?been	 ?a	 ?lot	 ?of	 ?debate	 ?on	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?other	 ?unfunded	 ?mandates	 ?in	 ?the	 ?U.S.	 ? These	 ? are	 ? situations	 ? where	 ? federal	 ? policymakers	 ? dictate	 ? to	 ? lower-??level	 ?governments	 ?without	 ?compensating	 ?them	 ?adequately	 ?for	 ?the	 ?expense	 ?of	 ?complying	 ?with	 ? the	 ? dictates	 ? (Nivola	 ? and	 ? Shields	 ? 2001),	 ? such	 ? as	 ? those	 ? imposed	 ? by	 ? the	 ? U.S.	 ?federal	 ?government	 ?on	 ?state	 ?and	 ? local	 ?governments	 ? in	 ? the	 ?1980s	 ?and	 ?early	 ?1990s.	 ?	 ?Unfunded	 ? mandates	 ? have	 ? a	 ? major	 ? impact	 ? on	 ? local	 ? finances	 ? and	 ? tend	 ? to	 ? absorb	 ?resources	 ?that	 ?local	 ?governments	 ?would	 ?otherwise	 ?allocate	 ?among	 ?other	 ?services	 ?or	 ?critical	 ?areas	 ?(Nivola	 ?and	 ?Shields	 ?2001;	 ?Weiland	 ?1998).	 ?Prominently	 ?featured	 ?in	 ?the	 ?unfunded	 ?mandates	 ?debate	 ?were	 ?the	 ?nation?s	 ?environmental	 ?laws	 ?(Weiland	 ?1998).	 ?	 ?While	 ? the	 ?majority	 ? of	 ? studies	 ? on	 ?unfunded	 ?mandates	 ? focus	 ?on	 ? their	 ? high	 ? cost	 ? and	 ?other	 ?negative	 ?aspects,	 ?some	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?shown	 ?that	 ?these	 ?mandates	 ?have	 ?built	 ?up	 ?organizational	 ? capacity.	 ? For	 ? example,	 ? (Weiland	 ? 1998)	 ? found	 ? that	 ? environmental	 ?mandates	 ?imposed	 ?by	 ?the	 ?US	 ?federal	 ?government	 ?led	 ?to	 ?increased	 ?training	 ?of	 ?state	 ?and	 ? local	 ? government	 ? officials,	 ? and	 ? better	 ? communication	 ? among	 ? them.	 ? In	 ? 1970	 ?most	 ? states	 ? were	 ? underequipped	 ? to	 ? deal	 ? effectively	 ? with	 ? the	 ? environmental	 ?problems	 ?they	 ?faced.	 ?Today,	 ?the	 ?environmental	 ?agencies	 ?of	 ?the	 ?fifty	 ?states	 ?together	 ?employ	 ?about	 ?60,000	 ?people,	 ?more	 ?than	 ?three	 ?times	 ?as	 ?many	 ?as	 ?the	 ?Environmental	 ?Protection	 ? Agency.	 ? The	 ? states	 ? also	 ? pay	 ? most	 ? of	 ? the	 ? expense	 ? of	 ? environmental	 ?	 ? 35	 ?programs,	 ?and	 ?some	 ?of	 ? their	 ? initiatives	 ?have	 ? inspired	 ?national	 ?policies	 ?(Nivola	 ?and	 ?Shields	 ?2001).	 ?	 ?	 ?(May	 ?and	 ?Burby	 ?1996)	 ?noted	 ?that	 ?often	 ?state	 ?and	 ?local	 ?governments	 ?complain	 ?that	 ?the	 ? actions	 ? they	 ? are	 ? mandated	 ? to	 ? undertake	 ? do	 ? not	 ? adequately	 ? reflect	 ? their	 ? own	 ?preferences.	 ? As	 ? a	 ? consequence,	 ? they	 ? are	 ? reluctant	 ? partners	 ? whose	 ? compliance	 ? is	 ?marked	 ? by	 ? half-??hearted	 ? efforts.	 ? The	 ? empirical	 ? study	 ? compared	 ? state	 ? hazard-??mitigation	 ? policy	 ? in	 ? Florida	 ? and	 ? New	 ? South	 ?Wales,	 ? Australia.	 ? The	 ? results	 ? showed	 ?that	 ? when	 ? local	 ? governments	 ? are	 ? not	 ? committed	 ? to	 ? state	 ? policy	 ? objectives,	 ? the	 ?coercive	 ? (mandatory)	 ? policy	 ? produced	 ? higher	 ? rates	 ? of	 ? procedural	 ? compliance	 ? and	 ?greater	 ? effort	 ? by	 ? local	 ? governments	 ? to	 ? achieve	 ? policy	 ? objectives	 ? compared	 ? to	 ? the	 ?cooperative	 ? (voluntary)	 ? policy.	 ? Moreover,	 ? the	 ? coercive	 ? policy	 ? appeared	 ? to	 ? be	 ?successful	 ? in	 ? increasing	 ? the	 ? capacity	 ? of	 ? local	 ? governments	 ? to	 ? work	 ? toward	 ? state	 ?policy	 ? aims,	 ? especially	 ? when	 ? coupled	 ? with	 ? ample	 ? resources	 ? and	 ? support.	 ? On	 ? the	 ?other	 ? hand,	 ? when	 ? local	 ? governments	 ? are	 ?more	 ? committed,	 ? the	 ? cooperative	 ? policy	 ?produces	 ?substantive	 ?results	 ?that	 ?are	 ?at	 ? least	 ?the	 ?equivalent	 ?to	 ?the	 ?coercive	 ?policy.	 ?Moreover,	 ? over	 ? the	 ? long	 ? run	 ? cooperative	 ? policies	 ? may	 ? have	 ? greater	 ? promise	 ? in	 ?sustaining	 ?local	 ?government	 ?commitment	 ?and	 ?facilitating	 ?learning	 ?(May	 ?and	 ?Burby	 ?1996).	 ?	 ?Given	 ?the	 ?concerns	 ?with	 ?unfunded	 ?environmental	 ?mandates,	 ?an	 ?important	 ?challenge	 ?is	 ? to	 ? identify	 ? more	 ? palatable	 ? ways	 ? of	 ? securing	 ? compliance	 ? with	 ? the	 ? higher-??level	 ?policy	 ?objectives	 ?(May	 ?and	 ?Burby	 ?1996).	 ?This	 ?challenge	 ?is	 ?in	 ?some	 ?ways	 ?a	 ?parallel	 ?to	 ?that	 ? of	 ? private	 ? sector	 ? regulation,	 ? for	 ? which	 ? regulatory	 ? theorists	 ? have	 ?made	 ? some	 ?progress	 ? in	 ? thinking	 ? about	 ? alternative	 ? approaches	 ? to	 ? enhancing	 ? private	 ? sector	 ?compliance	 ?and	 ?cooperation.	 ?	 ? 36	 ?2.3.9	 ? Reflection	 ?Whilst	 ? there	 ? has	 ? been	 ? a	 ? lot	 ? of	 ? criticism	 ? of	 ? traditional	 ? command	 ? and	 ? control	 ?regulation,	 ? there	 ? appears	 ? to	 ? be	 ? no	 ? clear	 ? consensus	 ? yet	 ? on	 ? the	 ? effectiveness	 ? of	 ? the	 ?alternative	 ?or	 ??new?	 ?approaches	 ?(Gunningham	 ?2007)	 ?and	 ?not	 ?many	 ?empirical	 ?studies	 ?undertaken	 ? to	 ? evaluate	 ? efficacies	 ? of	 ? these	 ? different	 ? approaches	 ? on	 ? organizations.	 ?Instead,	 ?some	 ?academics	 ?may	 ?have	 ??exhibited	 ?a	 ?tendency	 ?to	 ?be	 ?too	 ?fascinated	 ?with	 ?the	 ? description	 ? of	 ? the	 ? latest	 ? initiatives	 ? and	 ? regulatory	 ? tools	 ? rather	 ? than	 ? an	 ?inclination	 ?to	 ?engage	 ?in	 ?critical	 ?analysis?	 ?(Baldwin,	 ?Cave,	 ?and	 ?Lodge	 ?2010).	 ?Similarly,	 ?too	 ? much	 ? confidence	 ? has	 ? arguably	 ? been	 ? placed	 ? in	 ? so-??called	 ? ?alternative	 ? forms	 ? of	 ?regulation?,	 ?so	 ?that	 ?there	 ?has	 ?been	 ?an	 ?overplaying	 ?of	 ?the	 ?potential	 ?problem-??solving	 ?capacities	 ?of	 ? self-??regulatory	 ?or	 ?market-??based	 ?systems.	 ?Therefore	 ? it	 ? is	 ? important	 ? to	 ?continue	 ? to	 ? investigate	 ? the	 ? capacities	 ? of	 ? these	 ? systems	 ? to	 ? develop	 ? standards,	 ? to	 ?enforce	 ?them,	 ?and	 ?to	 ?gather	 ?robust	 ?information	 ?(Baldwin,	 ?Cave,	 ?and	 ?Lodge	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?Similarly,	 ?(Gunningham	 ?and	 ?Sinclair	 ?1999)	 ?argues	 ?that	 ?most	 ?traditional	 ?approaches	 ?to	 ? regulation	 ? are	 ? seriously	 ? suboptimal,	 ? in	 ? that	 ? they	 ? are	 ? not	 ? effective	 ? in	 ? achieving	 ?their	 ? purported	 ? policy	 ? goals,	 ? not	 ? efficient	 ? in	 ? doing	 ? so	 ? at	 ? least	 ? cost,	 ? nor	 ? do	 ? they	 ?perform	 ?well	 ? in	 ? terms	 ?of	 ?other	 ?criteria	 ?such	 ?as	 ?equity	 ?or	 ?political	 ?acceptability.	 ?On	 ?the	 ?other	 ?hand,	 ?market-??based	 ?instruments	 ?tend	 ?to	 ?be	 ?efficient	 ?but,	 ?in	 ?most	 ?cases,	 ?not	 ?as	 ?dependable.	 ? Information-??based	 ?strategies,	 ?voluntarism,	 ?and	 ?self-??regulation	 ?have	 ?the	 ? virtues	 ? of	 ? being	 ? non-??coercive	 ? and	 ? un-??intrusive,	 ? but	 ? also	 ? have	 ? low	 ? reliability	 ?when	 ? used	 ? in	 ? isolation.	 ? Given	 ? these	 ? limitations,	 ? the	 ? capacity	 ? of	 ? these	 ? alternative	 ?approaches	 ? to	 ?deliver	 ?optimal	 ?environmental	 ?outcomes	 ?may	 ?be	 ?even	 ?more	 ? limited	 ?than	 ?that	 ?of	 ?command	 ?and	 ?control	 ?regulation	 ?(Gunningham	 ?and	 ?Sinclair	 ?1999).	 ?	 ?It	 ? is	 ? therefore	 ?suggested	 ?that,	 ? in	 ?the	 ?majority	 ?of	 ?circumstances,	 ? the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?multiple	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?single-??policy	 ?instruments	 ?and	 ?a	 ?broader	 ?range	 ?of	 ?regulatory	 ?actors	 ?will	 ?produce	 ? better	 ? outcomes.	 ? The	 ? best	 ? means	 ? of	 ? overcoming	 ? the	 ? deficiencies	 ? of	 ?individual	 ? instruments	 ?or	 ?approaches,	 ?while	 ?taking	 ?advantage	 ?of	 ?their	 ?strengths,	 ? is	 ?	 ? 37	 ?through	 ?the	 ?design	 ?of	 ?combinations	 ?of	 ?instruments	 ?or	 ?approaches	 ?(Gunningham	 ?and	 ?Sinclair	 ? 1999).	 ? Further,	 ? this	 ? will	 ? allow	 ? the	 ? implementation	 ? of	 ? complementary	 ?combinations	 ?of	 ?instruments	 ?and	 ?participants	 ?tailored	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?the	 ?unique	 ?needs	 ?and	 ?challenges	 ?of	 ? specific	 ? environmental	 ? issues.	 ?By	 ? implication,	 ? this	 ?means	 ? a	 ? far	 ?more	 ?imaginative,	 ?flexible,	 ?and	 ?pluralistic	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?environmental	 ?regulation	 ?than	 ?has	 ?so	 ?far	 ?been	 ?adopted	 ?in	 ?most	 ?jurisdictions	 ?(Gunningham	 ?and	 ?Sinclair	 ?1999).	 ?	 ?Turning	 ?now	 ?to	 ?the	 ?challenge	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?change,	 ?we	 ?note	 ?that	 ?thus	 ?far,	 ?most	 ?of	 ?the	 ?studies	 ?on	 ?regulation/intervention	 ?have	 ?been	 ?based	 ?on	 ?environmental	 ?protection	 ?or	 ?pollution	 ? control,	 ? although	 ? they	 ? may	 ? provide	 ? useful	 ? lessons	 ? for	 ? climate	 ? change	 ?policies.	 ? More	 ? academic	 ? studies	 ? dealing	 ? specifically	 ? with	 ? climate	 ? change	 ? have	 ?started	 ? to	 ? emerge	 ? in	 ? recognition	 ? of	 ? the	 ? importance	 ? and	 ? complexity	 ? of	 ? this	 ? global	 ?challenge.	 ?Going	 ?forward,	 ?we	 ?could	 ?do	 ?well	 ?to	 ?be	 ?open	 ?to	 ?a	 ?plurality	 ?of	 ?approaches	 ?and	 ? focus	 ? more	 ? on	 ? evaluation	 ? of	 ? impacts,	 ? somewhat	 ? along	 ? the	 ? lines	 ? of	 ? the	 ?comparison	 ? of	 ? environmental	 ? policies	 ? in	 ? (Harrington,	 ? Morgenstern,	 ? and	 ? Sterner	 ?2004).	 ? As	 ? suggested	 ? by	 ? (Lyon	 ? and	 ? Maxwell	 ? 2004),	 ? global	 ? warming	 ? provides	 ? an	 ?excellent	 ?laboratory	 ?for	 ?the	 ?study	 ?of	 ?the	 ?optimal	 ?policy	 ?mix	 ?and	 ?different	 ?countries	 ?will	 ? experiment	 ? with	 ? different	 ? combinations	 ? of	 ? policies,	 ? creating	 ? a	 ? natural	 ?experiment	 ?highly	 ?worthy	 ?of	 ?detailed	 ?study.	 ?	 ?	 ?Further,	 ?to	 ?apply	 ?the	 ?above	 ?description	 ?of	 ?intervention	 ?approaches	 ?to	 ?the	 ?context	 ?of	 ?this	 ? study,	 ? we	 ? can	 ? see	 ? that	 ? BC?s	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? may	 ? be	 ? considered	 ? to	 ? contain	 ?elements	 ? of	 ? several	 ? intervention	 ? approaches	 ? imposed	 ? by	 ? the	 ? BC	 ? provincial	 ?government	 ?on	 ?PSOs,	 ?including:	 ?(a)	 ?	 ? Outcome	 ?or	 ?performance-??based	 ? intervention,	 ?where	 ?PSOs	 ?are	 ? required	 ? to	 ?be	 ??carbon	 ?neutral?	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?through	 ?a	 ?combination	 ?of	 ?emissions	 ?reduction	 ?and	 ?offset	 ?purchase;	 ?(b)	 ?	 ? Market-??based	 ?intervention,	 ?where	 ?PSOs	 ?have	 ?to	 ?pay	 ?$25/tonne	 ?CO2e	 ?to	 ?offset	 ?their	 ?remaining	 ?emissions;	 ?and	 ?	 ? 38	 ?(c)	 ? Management-??based	 ? intervention,	 ? where	 ? PSOs	 ? are	 ? required	 ? to	 ? update	 ? their	 ?GHG	 ? inventories	 ? annually	 ? and	 ? report	 ? on	 ? actions	 ? taken	 ? and	 ? plans	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ?GHG.	 ?	 ?Moreover,	 ? PSO	 ? operational	 ? budgets	 ? have	 ? not	 ? been	 ? augmented	 ? to	 ? help	 ? them	 ?implement	 ? emission	 ? reduction	 ?measures	 ? or	 ? purchase	 ? offsets,	 ? although	 ? they	 ? could	 ?apply	 ? for	 ? project	 ? grants	 ? from	 ? a	 ? $75	 ?million	 ? fund	 ? set	 ? aside	 ? for	 ? 3	 ? years	 ? under	 ? the	 ?PSECA.	 ?This	 ?situation	 ?can	 ?be	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?that	 ?of	 ? ?unfunded	 ?mandates?	 ?imposed	 ?by	 ?the	 ?U.S.	 ?federal	 ?government	 ?on	 ?state	 ?and	 ?local	 ?governments.	 ?	 ?	 ?2.4	 ? Boundaries	 ?An	 ? important	 ? determinant	 ? of	 ? a	 ? policy?s	 ? effectiveness,	 ? when	 ? viewed	 ? in	 ? relation	 ? to	 ?organizational	 ?responses	 ?and	 ?impacts,	 ? is	 ?the	 ?drawing	 ?of	 ?the	 ?policy?s	 ?boundaries.	 ?In	 ?the	 ? case	 ? of	 ? carbon	 ? neutrality	 ? for	 ? the	 ? public	 ? sector,	 ? policy	 ? boundaries	 ? set	 ? the	 ?foundation	 ?and	 ?define	 ?the	 ?scope	 ?for	 ?the	 ?subsequent	 ?steps	 ?of	 ?measurement,	 ?emission	 ?reduction,	 ?offset	 ?and	 ?verification.	 ?They	 ?are	 ?critical	 ?both	 ?for	 ?enhancing	 ?the	 ?credibility	 ?of	 ?a	 ?policy	 ?mandate	 ?and	 ?maximizing	 ?its	 ?effectiveness	 ?within	 ?and	 ?beyond	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?term	 ??carbon	 ?neutral?	 ?was	 ?initially	 ?used	 ?by	 ?companies	 ?like	 ?the	 ?American	 ?electric	 ?power	 ? company	 ? AES	 ? Corp.,	 ? which	 ? decided	 ? in	 ? 1989	 ? to	 ? offset	 ? part	 ? of	 ? its	 ? carbon	 ?dioxide	 ?emissions	 ? by	 ? launching	 ? carbon	 ? sequestration	 ? projects	 ? in	 ? Guatemala.	 ? Such	 ?pronouncements	 ?received	 ?favorable	 ?media	 ?attention	 ?at	 ?that	 ?time.	 ?However,	 ?in	 ?most	 ?of	 ? these	 ? cases,	 ? the	 ? emissions	 ? calculation	 ? takes	 ? into	 ? account	 ? mainly	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ?dioxide	 ?and	 ?other	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?linked	 ?to	 ?direct	 ?consumption	 ?of	 ?energy	 ?that	 ?arises	 ?from	 ? their	 ?own	 ?operations,	 ?but	 ?emissions	 ? from	 ? the	 ? rest	 ?of	 ? the	 ? supply	 ? chain	 ??	 ? that	 ?exist	 ?because	 ?of	 ?these	 ?operations	 ??	 ?are	 ?usually	 ?left	 ?out.	 ?	 ?	 ? 39	 ?In	 ? recent	 ? years,	 ? with	 ? greater	 ? attention	 ? worldwide	 ? on	 ? climate	 ? change,	 ? the	 ? term	 ??carbon	 ? neutral?	 ? has	 ? been	 ? used	 ? increasingly	 ? by	 ? governments,	 ? organizations,	 ?communities	 ? and	 ? individuals.	 ? Both	 ? regulated	 ? and	 ? voluntary	 ? markets	 ? have	 ? also	 ?expanded	 ? to	 ? meet	 ? the	 ? growing	 ? demand	 ? for	 ? carbon	 ? offsets,	 ? necessary	 ? for	 ? most	 ?organizations	 ? to	 ? achieve	 ? carbon	 ? neutrality	 ? in	 ? the	 ? short	 ? to	 ? medium	 ? term.	 ? Yet	 ? the	 ?general	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?clarity	 ?about	 ?the	 ?term	 ?has	 ?led	 ?to	 ?confusion	 ?and	 ?even	 ?cynicism,	 ?which	 ?can	 ?be	 ?counter-??productive	 ?to	 ?genuine	 ?efforts	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?emissions.	 ?Despite	 ?efforts	 ?to	 ?clarify	 ?the	 ?meaning	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?neutrality,	 ?many	 ?governments	 ?and	 ?organizations	 ?still	 ?choose	 ? to	 ? define	 ? the	 ? term	 ? in	 ? different	 ?ways	 ? to	 ? suit	 ? their	 ? own	 ?purposes.	 ? Generally	 ?speaking,	 ? without	 ? a	 ? clear	 ? definition	 ? of	 ? which	 ? emissions	 ? are	 ? being	 ? measured	 ? and	 ?reported,	 ? and	 ? which	 ? emissions	 ? are	 ? excluded,	 ? there	 ? is	 ? no	 ? firm	 ? foundation	 ? for	 ?reductions,	 ?so	 ?achieving	 ??carbon	 ?neutrality?	 ?would	 ?not	 ?be	 ?very	 ?meaningful.	 ?	 ?The	 ? Greenhouse	 ? Gas	 ? Protocol,	 ? the	 ? most	 ? common	 ? and	 ? internationally	 ? accepted	 ?approach	 ?to	 ?categorize	 ?and	 ?manage	 ?emissions,	 ?recommends	 ?that	 ?an	 ?organization,	 ?at	 ?a	 ? minimum,	 ? should	 ? report	 ? scope	 ? 1	 ? and	 ? scope	 ? 2	 ? GHG	 ? emissions.	 ? However,	 ? where	 ?possible,	 ? inclusion	 ?of	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ? is	 ?recommended	 ?(WRI	 ?and	 ?WBCSD	 ?2004).	 ?Scope	 ? 1	 ? (Direct)	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? are	 ? from	 ? sources	 ? owned	 ? or	 ? controlled	 ? by	 ? the	 ?organization,	 ?for	 ?example,	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?owned	 ?or	 ?controlled	 ?boilers,	 ?furnaces	 ?and	 ?vehicles.	 ? Scope	 ? 2	 ? (Electricity	 ? indirect)	 ? emissions	 ? are	 ? from	 ? the	 ? generation	 ? of	 ?purchased	 ?electricity	 ? consumed	 ?by	 ? the	 ?organization.	 ?Scope	 ?3	 ?(Other	 ? indirect)	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?are	 ?those	 ?that	 ?are	 ?a	 ?consequence	 ?of	 ?the	 ?activities	 ?of	 ?the	 ?organization,	 ?but	 ?occur	 ? from	 ? sources	 ? not	 ? owned	 ? or	 ? controlled	 ? by	 ? it.	 ? Examples	 ? are	 ? business	 ? travel,	 ?waste	 ?disposal,	 ?and	 ?use	 ?of	 ?sold	 ?products	 ?or	 ?services	 ?(WRI	 ?and	 ?WBCSD	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ? setting	 ? of	 ? organizational	 ? and	 ? operational	 ? boundaries	 ? has	 ? significant	 ?implications	 ?for	 ?the	 ?extent	 ?of	 ?coverage	 ?and	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?mitigation.	 ?By	 ?definition,	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?are	 ?not	 ?owned	 ?or	 ?controlled	 ?by	 ?the	 ?reporting	 ?company,	 ?but	 ?are	 ?the	 ?scope	 ?1	 ?and	 ?2	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ?other	 ?entities	 ?such	 ?as	 ?suppliers,	 ?customers,	 ?waste	 ?management	 ?	 ? 40	 ?and	 ? shipping	 ? companies.	 ? Although	 ? it	 ? is	 ? optional,	 ? including	 ? relevant	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?a	 ?GHG	 ?inventory	 ?ensures	 ?that	 ?the	 ?GHG	 ?inventory	 ?is	 ?complete	 ?and	 ?may	 ?provide	 ? companies	 ? with	 ? innovative	 ? opportunities	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? emissions.	 ? IKEA,	 ? for	 ?example,	 ?included	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?its	 ?customers?	 ?trips	 ?to	 ?and	 ?from	 ?its	 ?stores	 ?because	 ? it	 ? perceived	 ? this	 ? activity	 ? as	 ? important	 ? to	 ? its	 ? business.	 ? Its	 ? GHG	 ? inventory	 ?confirmed	 ? that	 ? this	 ? activity	 ? accounted	 ? for	 ? 56%	 ? of	 ? its	 ? total	 ? emissions.	 ? Moreover,	 ?IKEA	 ?found	 ?that	 ?it	 ?could	 ?have	 ?significant	 ?influence	 ?over	 ?its	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?when	 ?selecting	 ?sites	 ?for	 ?new	 ?stores,	 ?by	 ?making	 ?its	 ?stores	 ?accessible	 ?by	 ?public	 ?transit	 ?(WRI	 ?and	 ?WBCSD	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?In	 ?the	 ?Corporate	 ?Value	 ?Chain	 ?(Scope	 ?3)	 ?Accounting	 ?and	 ?Reporting	 ?Standard	 ?(WRI	 ?and	 ?WBCSD	 ?2011),	 ?it	 ?is	 ?pointed	 ?out	 ?that	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?are	 ?actually	 ?a	 ?consequence	 ?of	 ?the	 ? activities	 ? of	 ? the	 ? reporting	 ? company,	 ? and	 ? companies	 ? often	 ? have	 ? the	 ? ability	 ? to	 ?influence	 ?GHG	 ?reductions	 ?upstream	 ?and	 ?downstream	 ?of	 ?their	 ?operations.	 ?Companies	 ?are	 ? therefore	 ? advised	 ? to	 ? account	 ? for	 ? and	 ? report	 ? the	 ? largest	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ? sources	 ? that	 ?collectively	 ?account	 ?for	 ?at	 ?least	 ?80%	 ?of	 ?total	 ?anticipated	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ?The	 ?GHG	 ?Protocol	 ? for	 ? the	 ?U.S.	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ? (WRI	 ? and	 ? LMI	 ? 2010),	 ? it	 ? is	 ? proposed	 ?that	 ? organizations	 ? should	 ? initially	 ? focus	 ?on	 ? accounting	 ? for	 ? and	 ? reporting	 ? activities	 ?that	 ?are	 ?relevant	 ?to	 ?their	 ?organizational	 ?mission	 ?and	 ?goals,	 ?and	 ?for	 ?which	 ?they	 ?have	 ?reliable	 ?information.	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?organizations	 ?should	 ?consider	 ?reporting	 ?relevant	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?that	 ?are	 ?large	 ?(or	 ?believed	 ?to	 ?be	 ?large)	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?its	 ?scope	 ?1	 ?and	 ?scope	 ?2	 ?emissions	 ?and	 ?where	 ?potential	 ?emissions	 ?reductions	 ?could	 ?be	 ?undertaken	 ?or	 ?influenced	 ? by	 ? the	 ? organization.	 ? Given	 ? the	 ? substantial	 ? impact	 ? public	 ? sector	 ?organizations	 ? can	 ? have	 ? on	 ? indirect	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? through	 ? the	 ? use	 ? of	 ? contractors	 ?and	 ? procurement	 ? contracts,	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ? emissions	 ? for	 ? the	 ? public	 ? sector	 ?may	 ? be	 ? quite	 ?significant.	 ?	 ?	 ? 41	 ?The	 ? Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Government	 ? Regulation	 ? (CNGR)	 ? makes	 ? it	 ? clear	 ? that	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate	 ?focuses	 ?on	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?energy	 ?in	 ?the	 ?operations	 ?of	 ?PSOs,	 ?but	 ?not	 ?embodied	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?existing	 ?or	 ?new	 ?buildings,	 ?equipment,	 ?material	 ?or	 ? services	 ? used	 ? by	 ? PSOs	 ? in	 ? the	 ? course	 ? of	 ? their	 ? operations.	 ? Thus	 ? emissions	 ? to	 ? be	 ?reported	 ? and	 ?offset	 ? under	 ?GGRTA	 ?are	 ?mainly	 ? scope	 ?1	 ? and	 ? scope	 ?2	 ? emissions.	 ? The	 ?only	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ? emissions	 ? included	 ? are	 ? those	 ? from	 ? business	 ? travel	 ? (for	 ? core	 ?government	 ? only)	 ? and	 ? office	 ? paper	 ? usage.	 ? According	 ? to	 ? the	 ? Climate	 ? Action	 ?Secretariat	 ? (CAS)	 ? of	 ? the	 ? Ministry	 ? of	 ? Environment,	 ? this	 ? latter	 ? category	 ? is	 ? included	 ?because	 ?it	 ?is	 ?highly	 ?visible,	 ?and	 ?is	 ?something	 ?that	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?employees	 ?can	 ?easily	 ?relate	 ?to	 ?and	 ?act	 ?upon.	 ?	 ?The	 ? current	 ? coverage	 ? of	 ? BC?s	 ? mandate	 ? is	 ? a	 ? positive	 ? first	 ? step.	 ? Scope	 ? 1	 ? and	 ? 2	 ?emissions	 ? are	 ? easier	 ? to	 ?measure	 ? and	 ? less	 ? controversial	 ? since	 ? they	 ? can	 ? be	 ? directly	 ?linked	 ? to	 ? energy	 ? consumption.	 ? However,	 ? although	 ? all	 ? non-??energy	 ? services	 ? and	 ?materials	 ?used	 ?by	 ?the	 ?PSOs	 ?in	 ?their	 ?operations	 ?are	 ?potentially	 ?reportable	 ?under	 ?the	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?heading,	 ?only	 ?a	 ?small	 ?fraction	 ?of	 ?them	 ?are	 ?covered	 ?by	 ?the	 ?current	 ?mandate.	 ?Scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?include	 ?everything	 ?from	 ?employees?	 ?commuting	 ?to	 ?work,	 ?through	 ?to	 ? outsourced	 ? activities	 ? such	 ? as	 ? billing	 ? and	 ? insurance,	 ? to	 ? embodied	 ?energy/emissions	 ?in	 ?new	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?appliances.	 ?These	 ?emissions	 ?exist	 ?because	 ?of	 ?government	 ? operations,	 ? but	 ? are	 ? not	 ? directly	 ? owned	 ? or	 ? controlled	 ? by	 ? the	 ? public	 ?sector;	 ? yet	 ? they	 ? make	 ? up	 ? a	 ? significant	 ? proportion	 ? of	 ? the	 ? total	 ? emissions	 ? of	 ? some	 ?PSOs.	 ?In	 ?such	 ?cases,	 ?the	 ?PSOs	 ?may	 ?be	 ?able	 ?to	 ?exert	 ?considerable	 ?influence	 ?over	 ?these	 ?emissions	 ? through	 ? their	 ?policies	 ? and	 ?decisions	 ? regarding	 ? transportation	 ? subsidies,	 ?parking	 ?provision,	 ?contracting	 ?and	 ?procurement,	 ?etc.	 ?At	 ?the	 ?same	 ?time,	 ? it	 ?may	 ?also	 ?be	 ?more	 ?cost-??effective	 ? to	 ?reduce	 ?some	 ?of	 ? these	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions,	 ?as	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?reducing	 ?PSOs?	 ?scope	 ?1	 ?or	 ?scope	 ?2	 ?emissions	 ?or	 ?purchasing	 ?offsets	 ?through	 ?the	 ?PCT.	 ?For	 ?an	 ?illustration	 ?of	 ?this,	 ?please	 ?refer	 ?to	 ?the	 ?UBC	 ?case	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?6.	 ?	 ?	 ? 42	 ?2.5	 ? Summary	 ?This	 ? literature	 ?review	 ?has	 ?highlighted	 ? that	 ? there	 ? is	 ?some	 ?evidence	 ? that	 ?mandatory	 ?policies	 ?have	 ?been	 ?generally	 ?more	 ?effective	 ?in	 ?securing	 ?compliance	 ?of	 ?private	 ?firms	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?environmental	 ?goals,	 ?although	 ?in	 ?other	 ? instances,	 ?such	 ?policies	 ?have	 ?failed	 ?to	 ?work	 ?as	 ?anticipated.	 ?In	 ?addition,	 ?the	 ?empirical	 ?studies	 ?evaluating	 ?the	 ?outcome	 ?of	 ?different	 ?approaches	 ?draw	 ?our	 ?attention	 ? to	 ? the	 ?complexities	 ?of	 ? the	 ? real	 ?world	 ?and	 ?the	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?history	 ?and	 ?context	 ?in	 ?determining	 ?the	 ?outcomes.	 ?They	 ?emphasize	 ?that	 ?the	 ?details	 ?of	 ?policies	 ?and	 ?instruments	 ?used	 ?can	 ?make	 ?a	 ?big	 ?difference	 ?to	 ?their	 ?impact	 ?and	 ?effectiveness.	 ?	 ?Several	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?also	 ?pointed	 ?out	 ?that	 ?policy	 ?design	 ?needs	 ?to	 ?take	 ?into	 ?account	 ?the	 ? characteristics	 ? of	 ? organizations,	 ? their	 ? values,	 ? structures	 ? and	 ? decision-??making	 ?processes.	 ?There	 ?is	 ?no	 ?single	 ?approach	 ?that	 ?works	 ?effectively	 ?for	 ?all	 ?situations,	 ?so	 ?the	 ?key	 ? is	 ? to	 ? select	 ? the	 ? approaches	 ? and	 ? combination	 ? of	 ? instruments	 ? to	 ? best	 ? fit	 ? the	 ?situation	 ? and	 ? targets	 ? of	 ? intervention.	 ? Thus,	 ? we	 ? may	 ? see	 ? here	 ? an	 ? application	 ? of	 ?Simon?s	 ?administrative	 ?theory,	 ?where	 ?effective	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?action	 ?would	 ?consist	 ?of	 ?the	 ?government	 ?designing	 ?policies	 ?and	 ?instruments	 ?and	 ?creating	 ?conditions	 ?such	 ?that	 ?the	 ?target	 ?organizations	 ?will	 ?be	 ?motivated	 ?to	 ?approach	 ?as	 ?close	 ?as	 ?practicable	 ?to	 ?rational	 ? decisions	 ? in	 ? terms	 ? of	 ? climate	 ? action	 ? goals.	 ?However,	 ? given	 ? the	 ? global	 ? and	 ?fundamental	 ?nature	 ?of	 ? the	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?challenge,	 ?and	 ?with	 ?organizations	 ?being	 ?more	 ? interconnected	 ? than	 ? ever	 ? before,	 ?we	 ?need	 ? to	 ? pay	 ? particular	 ? attention	 ? to	 ? the	 ?boundaries	 ? of	 ? the	 ? target	 ? organizations	 ? that	 ? the	 ? policies	 ? are	 ? aimed	 ? at	 ? influencing,	 ?since	 ?the	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?the	 ?boundaries	 ?affects	 ?the	 ?effectiveness	 ?of	 ?the	 ?chosen	 ?policies	 ?and	 ? their	 ? spillover	 ? impacts.	 ? For	 ? example,	 ? an	 ? expanded	 ? coverage	 ? of	 ? BC?s	 ? ?carbon	 ?neutral	 ? government?	 ? mandate	 ? can	 ? open	 ? up	 ?more	 ? opportunities	 ? for	 ? reducing	 ? GHG	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?BC	 ?at	 ?a	 ?lower	 ?cost.	 ?	 ?	 ? 43	 ?In	 ? contrast	 ? to	 ? the	 ?many	 ? studies	 ? that	 ? have	 ? examined	 ? the	 ? impact	 ? of	 ? environmental	 ?interventions	 ? on	 ? private	 ? sector	 ? organizations,	 ? few	 ? have	 ? focused	 ? on	 ? the	 ? impact	 ? on	 ?government	 ? organizations	 ? and,	 ? more	 ? specifically,	 ? on	 ? environmental	 ? mandates	 ?imposed	 ?on	 ? government	 ? organizations.	 ?There	 ? are	 ? even	 ? fewer	 ? empirical	 ? studies	 ? or	 ?evaluations	 ? of	 ? government	 ?mandates,	 ? despite	 ? theoretical	 ? pieces	 ? that	 ? highlight	 ? the	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?organizational	 ? factors	 ? in	 ? influencing	 ?how	 ?government	 ?organizations	 ?respond	 ?to	 ?environmental	 ?interventions.	 ?	 ?Since	 ? environmental	 ? mandates	 ? on	 ? government	 ? organizations	 ? is	 ? potentially	 ? an	 ?important	 ? and	 ?effective	 ?way	 ? to	 ?bring	 ?about	 ?drastic	 ? reduction	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? in	 ?the	 ? public	 ? sector,	 ? with	 ? the	 ? additional	 ? prospect	 ? of	 ? influencing	 ? the	 ? private	 ? sector	 ?through	 ?the	 ?mandate?s	 ?spillover	 ?effects,	 ?there	 ?should	 ?be	 ?more	 ?research	 ?to	 ?help	 ?us	 ?to	 ?better	 ?understand	 ?the	 ?factors	 ?that	 ?influence	 ?how	 ?government	 ?organizations	 ?respond	 ?to	 ? environmental	 ? mandates,	 ? including	 ? the	 ? provision	 ? of	 ? adequate	 ? resources	 ? and	 ?support	 ?mechanisms	 ?that	 ?will	 ?enable	 ?these	 ?organizations	 ?to	 ?act	 ?so	 ?as	 ?to	 ?achieve	 ?the	 ?best	 ?possible	 ?policy	 ?outcome.	 ?Specifically,	 ?by	 ?assessing	 ?the	 ?performance	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?policies	 ?in	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?their	 ?actual	 ?outcomes,	 ?retrospective	 ?programme	 ?evaluation	 ?can	 ?inform	 ? policy	 ? deliberations	 ? within	 ? an	 ? adaptive	 ? management	 ? approach	 ? and	 ? help	 ?move	 ? climate	 ? decision-??making	 ? closer	 ? to	 ? an	 ? evidence-??based	 ? practice	 ? (Bennear	 ? and	 ?Coglianese	 ?2005).	 ?	 ?2.6	 ? Observations	 ?The	 ?literature	 ?review	 ?in	 ?this	 ?chapter	 ?suggests	 ?a	 ?strong	 ?case	 ?for	 ?this	 ?study	 ?to	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?climate	 ? change	 ? action	 ? at	 ? the	 ? organizational	 ? level,	 ? in	 ? particular,	 ? the	 ? importance	 ? of	 ?looking	 ? at	 ? the	 ? perspective	 ? of	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? organizations	 ? taking	 ? action	 ? to	 ?mitigate	 ?climate	 ?change.	 ?This	 ?perspective	 ?can	 ?help	 ?to	 ?inform	 ?on	 ?the	 ?potential	 ?effectiveness	 ?of	 ?imposing	 ?a	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?mandate	 ?on	 ?public	 ?organizations	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?better	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?the	 ?factors	 ?that	 ?affect	 ?	 ? 44	 ?the	 ?effectiveness	 ?of	 ?the	 ?mandate,	 ?including	 ?how	 ?the	 ?mandate	 ?facilitates	 ?and	 ?hinders	 ?decision-??making	 ?by	 ?these	 ?organizations.	 ?	 ?	 ?There	 ?are	 ?several	 ? important	 ?observations	 ?arising	 ?from	 ?the	 ?above	 ? literature	 ?review	 ?that	 ?are	 ?noteworthy	 ?for	 ?the	 ?purpose	 ?of	 ?framing	 ?or	 ?scoping	 ?this	 ?study,	 ?identifying	 ?the	 ?research	 ?questions	 ?and	 ?formulating	 ?the	 ?methodology:	 ?(a) Decision-??making	 ? is	 ? a	 ? highly	 ? complex	 ? process	 ? in	 ?most	 ? organizations,	 ? perhaps	 ?more	 ?so	 ?in	 ?public	 ?organizations,	 ?and	 ?in	 ?particular,	 ?post-??secondary	 ?institutions.	 ?Decisions	 ? regarding	 ? environmental	 ? practices	 ? and	 ? allocation	 ? of	 ? funds	 ? for	 ?infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? are	 ? made	 ? based	 ? not	 ? only	 ? on	 ? rational	 ? and	 ? economic	 ?factors,	 ?but	 ?are	 ?also	 ?affected	 ?by	 ?organizational	 ?values,	 ?stakeholder	 ?pressures,	 ?personalities,	 ?past	 ?experiences,	 ?internal	 ?resources	 ?and	 ?institutional	 ?structures,	 ?among	 ?others.	 ?(b) Studies	 ?have	 ? identified	 ? leadership	 ?and	 ?organizational	 ?structure	 ?as	 ?among	 ?the	 ?key	 ?factors	 ?that	 ?determine	 ?the	 ?extent	 ?to	 ?which	 ?organizations,	 ?including	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?organizations,	 ?can	 ?bring	 ?about	 ?transformational	 ?change	 ?in	 ?the	 ?pursuit	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?action,	 ?or	 ?more	 ?generally,	 ?sustainability.	 ?(c) There	 ? is	 ? some	 ? evidence	 ? that	 ? mandatory	 ? policies	 ? have	 ? been	 ? generally	 ? more	 ?effective	 ?in	 ?securing	 ?compliance	 ?of	 ?private	 ?firms	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?environmental	 ?goals.	 ?(d) Although	 ? most	 ? studies	 ? on	 ? government	 ? mandates	 ? and	 ? unfunded	 ? mandates	 ?focused	 ?on	 ?the	 ?high	 ?costs	 ?of	 ?such	 ?mandates,	 ?a	 ?few	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?found	 ?that	 ?they	 ?have	 ? led	 ? to	 ? an	 ? increase	 ? in	 ? emphasis	 ? on	 ? previously	 ? neglected	 ? areas	 ? such	 ? as	 ?environmental	 ?impact,	 ?greater	 ?environmental	 ?expertise	 ?overall	 ?and	 ?enhanced	 ?training	 ?and	 ?capacity	 ?of	 ?local	 ?governments.	 ?	 ?(e) Previous	 ? studies	 ? of	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? organizations,	 ? including	 ? post-??secondary	 ?institutions,	 ? have	 ? focused	 ?mainly	 ? on	 ? actions	 ? taken	 ? by	 ? these	 ? organizations	 ? to	 ?become	 ? more	 ? ?sustainable?,	 ? of	 ? which	 ? reducing	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? are	 ? but	 ? one	 ?aspect.	 ?Few	 ?independent	 ?studies	 ?have	 ?evaluated	 ?the	 ?outcome	 ?of	 ?these	 ?actions	 ?in	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?actual	 ?performance	 ?against	 ?their	 ?targets,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?GHG	 ?targets.	 ?	 ?	 ? 45	 ?(f) As	 ? far	 ? as	 ? we	 ? know,	 ? there	 ? is	 ? no	 ? independent	 ? evaluation	 ? of	 ? the	 ? impacts	 ? and	 ?effectiveness	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?in	 ?BC.	 ?(g) Previous	 ?studies,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?(Webster	 ?and	 ?Moore	 ?2009),	 ?have	 ?highlighted	 ?that	 ?the	 ?major	 ? constraints	 ? hindering	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? from	 ? doing	 ?more	 ? to	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? include:	 ? 	 ?bureaucratic	 ? inertia,	 ? lack	 ?of	 ? funding	 ?and	 ?lack	 ?of	 ? awareness	 ? and	 ? communication.	 ? Financing	 ?was	 ? the	 ? greatest	 ? challenge	 ? they	 ?face	 ? in	 ? implementing	 ? the	 ? GGRTA	 ? and	 ? there	 ? was	 ? concern	 ? that	 ? without	 ?additional	 ?funding	 ?some	 ?institutions	 ?may	 ?be	 ?forced	 ?to	 ?make	 ?cuts	 ?in	 ?areas	 ?that	 ?could	 ?affect	 ?core	 ?programming.	 ?(h) The	 ?drawing	 ?of	 ?policy	 ?boundaries	 ?can	 ?affect	 ?the	 ?way	 ?organizations	 ?respond	 ?to	 ?a	 ?policy	 ?and	 ?may	 ?shift	 ?priorities	 ?within	 ?organizations,	 ?which	 ?in	 ?turn	 ?affect	 ?the	 ?effectiveness	 ? of	 ? the	 ? policy.	 ? Boundaries	 ? may	 ? even	 ? result	 ? in	 ? incentives	 ? and	 ?outcomes	 ? that	 ? are	 ? contrary	 ? to	 ? the	 ? original	 ? intent	 ? of	 ? the	 ? policy.	 ? This	 ? could	 ?happen	 ?if	 ?an	 ?organization	 ?outsources	 ?its	 ?emission-??producing	 ?activities	 ?to	 ?avoid	 ?having	 ? to	 ? pay	 ? tax	 ? or	 ? buy	 ? offsets	 ? for	 ? these	 ? emissions,	 ? but	 ? the	 ? outsourced	 ?activities	 ?lead	 ?to	 ?an	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?emissions	 ?outside	 ?the	 ?policy	 ?boundaries.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 46	 ?3.	 ? Methodology	 ?3.1	 ? Introduction	 ?As	 ?mentioned	 ?in	 ?Section	 ?1.4,	 ?the	 ?objectives	 ?of	 ?this	 ?study	 ?are	 ?to	 ?evaluate	 ?the	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?on	 ?PSOs	 ?since	 ?its	 ?announcement	 ?in	 ?2007,	 ?including	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?on	 ? actual	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? and	 ? influence	 ? on	 ? decisions	 ? regarding	 ? infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?would	 ?significantly	 ?reduce	 ?the	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ?PSOs.	 ?This	 ?study	 ?also	 ?seeks	 ? to	 ? find	 ? out	 ? whether	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? has	 ? mitigated	 ? any	 ? of	 ? the	 ? major	 ?constraints,	 ? and	 ? whether	 ? support	 ? mechanisms	 ? provided	 ? by	 ? the	 ? provincial	 ?government	 ?or	 ?other	 ?government	 ?agencies	 ?have	 ?helped	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?overcome	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ?constraints	 ?hindering	 ?emissions	 ?reduction	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?	 ?3.2	 ? Overall	 ?Approach	 ?This	 ? study	 ? uses	 ? a	 ? sequential	 ? explanatory	 ? design	 ? mixed	 ? methods	 ? approach	 ?(Tashakkori	 ? and	 ?Teddlie	 ? 2003;	 ? Creswell	 ? et	 ? al.	 ? 2003).	 ? This	 ? consists	 ? of	 ? two	 ?phases,	 ?beginning	 ? with	 ? the	 ? collection	 ? and	 ? analysis	 ? of	 ? quantitative	 ? data,	 ? followed	 ? by	 ? the	 ?collection	 ?and	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?qualitative	 ?data	 ?that	 ?aims	 ?to	 ?explain,	 ?interpret	 ?or	 ?enhance	 ?the	 ? quantitative	 ? results.	 ? During	 ? the	 ? second,	 ? follow-??up	 ? phase	 ? of	 ? this	 ? explanatory	 ?design,	 ? the	 ? researcher	 ? may	 ? identify	 ? specific	 ? quantitative	 ? findings	 ? from	 ? the	 ? first	 ?phase,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?unexpected	 ?results,	 ?outliers	 ?or	 ?differences	 ?between	 ?groups	 ?that	 ?need	 ?further	 ?exploration	 ?using	 ?qualitative	 ?methodology	 ?(Tashakkori	 ?and	 ?Teddlie	 ?2003).	 ?	 ?	 ?This	 ? pragmatic	 ? mixed	 ? methods	 ? approach	 ? recognizes	 ? the	 ? usefulness	 ? of	 ? both	 ?quantitative	 ?and	 ?qualitative	 ?paradigms	 ?and	 ? identifies	 ?how	 ?these	 ?paradigms	 ?can	 ?be	 ?used	 ? together	 ? in	 ? a	 ? single	 ? study	 ? to	 ? maximize	 ? the	 ? strengths	 ? and	 ? minimize	 ? the	 ?weaknesses	 ?of	 ?each	 ?other,	 ? thus	 ?allowing	 ?the	 ?researcher	 ? to	 ?design	 ?a	 ?study	 ?that	 ?will	 ?offer	 ? the	 ?best	 ? chance	 ?of	 ? answering	 ? the	 ? specific	 ? research	 ?questions	 ? (Creswell	 ? et	 ? al.	 ?	 ? 47	 ?2003;	 ?Johnson	 ?and	 ?Onwuegbuzie	 ?2004).	 ?Moreover,	 ?this	 ?allows	 ?for	 ?greater	 ?validity	 ?in	 ?the	 ? study	 ? by	 ? seeking	 ? convergence	 ? or	 ? corroboration	 ? between	 ? quantitative	 ? and	 ?qualitative	 ?data,	 ?and	 ?using	 ?a	 ?combination	 ?of	 ?research	 ?approaches	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?more	 ?complete	 ? and	 ? comprehensive	 ? picture	 ? of	 ? the	 ? phenomenon	 ? being	 ? studied	 ? (Greene,	 ?Caracelli,	 ?and	 ?Graham	 ?1989).	 ?	 ?Within	 ?the	 ?mixed	 ?methods	 ?approach,	 ? the	 ?case	 ?study	 ?form	 ?is	 ?used,	 ?recognizing	 ?that	 ?decisions	 ? on	 ? infrastructure	 ? investments	 ? are	 ? likely	 ? to	 ? be	 ? influenced	 ? by	 ? many	 ?different	 ? personal	 ? and	 ? organizational	 ? factors.	 ? The	 ? case	 ? study	 ? form	 ? is	 ? particularly	 ?appropriate	 ?when	 ? researchers	 ?want	 ? to	 ? cover	 ? contextual	 ? conditions	 ? that	 ?might	 ? be	 ?highly	 ?pertinent	 ? to	 ? the	 ?phenomenon	 ?being	 ?studied	 ?(Yin	 ?2009)	 ?and	 ?need	 ?to	 ?rely	 ?on	 ?multiple	 ? sources	 ? of	 ? evidence	 ? (Yin	 ? 2003).	 ? Explanatory	 ? case	 ? studies	 ? are	 ? also	 ? the	 ?preferred	 ? strategy	 ? when	 ? ?how?	 ? or	 ? ?why?	 ? questions	 ? are	 ? being	 ? posed,	 ? when	 ? the	 ?researcher	 ? has	 ? little	 ? control	 ? over	 ? events,	 ? and	 ?when	 ? the	 ? focus	 ? is	 ? on	 ? contemporary	 ?phenomenon	 ?within	 ?some	 ?real-??life	 ?context	 ?(Yin	 ?2009),	 ?as	 ?in	 ?this	 ?study.	 ?In	 ?addition,	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?primary	 ?virtues	 ?of	 ?the	 ?case	 ?study	 ?method	 ?is	 ?the	 ?depth	 ?of	 ?analysis	 ?that	 ?it	 ?offers,	 ? in	 ? terms	 ?of	 ? the	 ?detail,	 ? richness,	 ? completeness,	 ? or	 ?degree	 ?of	 ? variance	 ? that	 ? is	 ?accounted	 ?for	 ?by	 ?an	 ?explanation	 ?(Gerring	 ?2004).	 ?	 ?	 ?Specifically,	 ?to	 ?gain	 ?a	 ?deeper	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?the	 ?driving	 ?forces	 ?behind	 ?the	 ?changes	 ?to	 ?organizational	 ?decision-??making	 ?during	 ?the	 ?period	 ?under	 ?study,	 ?a	 ?comparative	 ?or	 ?multiple	 ?case	 ?study	 ?design	 ?(Stake	 ?2005)	 ?is	 ?employed	 ?with	 ?a	 ?few	 ?selected	 ?PSOs	 ?being	 ?studied	 ?in-??depth.	 ?They	 ?can	 ?be	 ?selected	 ?based	 ?on	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?quantitative	 ?data	 ?during	 ?the	 ? first	 ?phase	 ?of	 ? the	 ?study,	 ?using	 ?criteria	 ?such	 ?as	 ?size	 ?of	 ?organization	 ?(e.g.	 ?annual	 ?budget),	 ? nature	 ? of	 ? operations,	 ? and	 ? percentage	 ? reduction	 ? of	 ?GHG	 ? emissions	 ? during	 ?the	 ? study	 ? period.	 ? Another	 ? important	 ? criteria	 ? for	 ? the	 ? selection	 ? of	 ? case	 ? study	 ?organization	 ? can	 ?be	 ?based	 ?on	 ? the	 ?potential	 ? for	 ?maximum	 ? learning,	 ?where	 ?pairs	 ? of	 ?organizations	 ?are	 ?chosen	 ?for	 ?their	 ?similar	 ?or	 ?contrasting	 ?situations,	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?their	 ?representativeness	 ?of	 ?the	 ?general	 ?population	 ?of	 ?organizations	 ?(Stake	 ?2005).	 ?	 ? 48	 ?The	 ? mixed	 ? methods	 ? case	 ? study	 ? approach	 ? employed	 ? by	 ? this	 ? study	 ? involves	 ? a	 ?quantitative	 ? analysis	 ? of	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? inventories	 ? from	 ? 2010	 ? to	 ? 2012	 ? and	 ? a	 ?qualitative	 ? analysis	 ? of	 ? documents	 ? of	 ? the	 ? case	 ? study	 ? PSOs,	 ? as	 ? well	 ? as	 ? expert	 ?interviews	 ?of	 ?key	 ?stakeholders.	 ?As	 ?the	 ?available	 ?quantitative	 ?data	 ? is	 ? from	 ?a	 ? limited	 ?implementation	 ? period,	 ? the	 ? qualitative	 ? analyses	 ? will	 ? help	 ? to	 ? expand	 ? on	 ? facts	 ? or	 ?observations	 ?found	 ?during	 ?the	 ?quantitative	 ?analysis,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?corroborate	 ?or	 ?help	 ?interpret	 ?the	 ?quantitative	 ?results.	 ?	 ?3.3	 ? Research	 ?Questions	 ?According	 ? to	 ? theories	 ? of	 ? rational	 ? choice	 ? or	 ? bounded	 ? rationality,	 ? a	 ? PSO	 ? acting	 ? as	 ? a	 ?rational	 ? decision-??making	 ? body	 ? is	 ? expected	 ? to	 ? undertake	 ? actions	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? GHG	 ?emissions	 ?up	 ?to	 ?the	 ?point	 ?where	 ?the	 ?total	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?doing	 ?so,	 ?including	 ?allowances	 ?for	 ?the	 ?risks	 ?involved,	 ?is	 ?no	 ?higher	 ?than	 ?the	 ?price	 ?of	 ?these	 ?emissions.	 ?In	 ?the	 ?case	 ?of	 ?a	 ?PSO	 ?in	 ? BC,	 ? the	 ? latter	 ? would	 ? be	 ? the	 ? combination	 ? of	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? and	 ? cost	 ? of	 ? purchasing	 ?offsets,	 ? which	 ? varied	 ? between	 ? $40	 ? to	 ? $55	 ? per	 ? tonne	 ? CO2e	 ? during	 ? 2008	 ? to	 ? 2012.	 ?However,	 ? in	 ? practice,	 ? there	 ? are	 ?many	 ? other	 ? considerations	 ? that	 ? a	 ? PSO	 ?has	 ? to	 ? take	 ?into	 ? account,	 ? such	 ? as	 ? organizational	 ? goals	 ? and	 ? priorities,	 ? its	 ? financial	 ? situation,	 ?know-??how,	 ? institutional	 ? procedures,	 ? contractual	 ? obligations,	 ? legal	 ? constraints	 ?(Cohen,	 ? March,	 ? and	 ? Olsen	 ? 1972),	 ? past	 ? experiences	 ? (March	 ? and	 ? Olsen	 ? 1975)	 ? and	 ??rules	 ?or	 ? logic	 ?of	 ?appropriateness?	 ? (March	 ?1991).	 ?PSOs	 ? faced	 ?with	 ?sizeable	 ?budget	 ?shortfalls	 ?will	 ? have	 ? to	 ?weigh	 ? various	 ? options	 ? that	 ?may	 ? involve	 ? trade-??offs	 ? between	 ?short-??term	 ? cost	 ? (e.g.	 ? offset	 ? purchases)	 ? and	 ? long-??term	 ? global	 ? benefit	 ? (i.e.	 ? climate	 ?stabilization),	 ?or	 ?investing	 ?in	 ?higher	 ?capital	 ?cost	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?against	 ?continued	 ?provision	 ? of	 ? core	 ? services.	 ? In	 ? addition,	 ?while	 ? a	 ? PSO	 ? can	 ? reduce	 ? its	 ? individual	 ?GHG	 ?emission	 ? by	 ? fuel	 ? switching	 ? (e.g.	 ? from	 ? gas	 ? to	 ? electricity)	 ? the	 ? long-??run	 ? social	 ? and	 ?environmental	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?such	 ?a	 ?choice	 ?needs	 ?to	 ?be	 ?clearly	 ?signaled	 ?in	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?the	 ?need	 ?to	 ?invest	 ?in	 ?new	 ?generation	 ?capacity	 ?and	 ?much	 ?higher	 ?electricity	 ?prices.	 ?	 ?	 ? 49	 ?Therefore,	 ? this	 ? study	 ?aims	 ? to	 ? add	 ? to	 ? the	 ? current	 ?knowledge	 ?on	 ?policies,	 ? factors	 ?or	 ?conditions	 ? that	 ? can	 ? help	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? to	 ? undertake	 ? transformative	 ?changes	 ?that	 ?significantly	 ?reduce	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?it	 ?will	 ?examine	 ?whether	 ?and	 ?how	 ?mandating	 ? carbon	 ?neutrality	 ? can	 ? contribute	 ? towards	 ? facilitating	 ?investment	 ? in	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? reduce	 ? GHG	 ? emissions.	 ? The	 ? study	 ? also	 ?aims	 ? to	 ? inform	 ? on	 ? the	 ? support	 ?mechanisms	 ? that	 ? can	 ? help	 ? public	 ? organizations	 ? to	 ?reduce	 ? their	 ? emissions.	 ? These	 ? mechanisms	 ? may	 ? include	 ? additional	 ? funding	 ? and	 ?expertise,	 ? as	 ?well	 ? as	 ? learning	 ? networks.	 ? Hence,	 ? one	 ? line	 ? of	 ? inquiry	 ? focuses	 ? on	 ? the	 ?roles	 ? of	 ? internal	 ? and	 ? external	 ? expertise	 ? and	 ? support	 ? networks	 ? in	 ? influencing	 ? the	 ?organizations?	 ? responses	 ? and	 ? their	 ? organizational	 ? learning	 ? processes	 ? (Crossan,	 ?Lane,	 ?and	 ?White	 ?1999).	 ?	 ?Given	 ? the	 ? context	 ? of	 ? BC?s	 ? natural	 ? experiment	 ? on	 ? climate	 ? action	 ? as	 ? outlined	 ? in	 ?Chapter	 ?1	 ?and	 ?the	 ?research	 ?needs	 ?as	 ?identified	 ?by	 ?the	 ?literature	 ?review	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?2,	 ?the	 ?main	 ?research	 ?questions	 ?for	 ?this	 ?study	 ?are	 ?formulated	 ?as	 ?follows:	 ?RQ1:	 ?Has	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?neutral	 ?government	 ?(CNG)	 ?mandate	 ?changed	 ?decision-??making	 ?processes	 ? and	 ? outcomes	 ? for	 ? new	 ? or	 ? retrofit	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ?significantly	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions?	 ?How	 ?and	 ?why?	 ?RQ2:	 ?What	 ?support	 ?mechanisms	 ?helped	 ?or	 ?would	 ?help	 ?decision-??making	 ?in	 ?favour	 ?of	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?substantially	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions?	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ? order	 ? to	 ? answer	 ? the	 ? above	 ?main	 ? research	 ? questions,	 ? the	 ? propositions	 ? that	 ? are	 ?tested	 ?by	 ?the	 ?study	 ?are:	 ?P1:	 ? BC?s	 ? CNG	 ?mandate,	 ? together	 ? with	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax,	 ? have	 ?made	 ? it	 ? significantly	 ?easier	 ? for	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? to	 ? justify	 ? and	 ? decide	 ? to	 ? implement	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?substantially	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ? 50	 ?P2:	 ? Shortage	 ? of	 ? funding	 ? remains	 ? as	 ? the	 ? major	 ? constraint	 ? holding	 ? back	 ?infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? substantially	 ? reduce	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? in	 ? these	 ?institutions.	 ?P3:	 ? Support	 ?mechanisms	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate	 ? have	 ? helped	 ? to	 ? address	 ? the	 ?major	 ?constraints	 ?hindering	 ?emission	 ?reduction	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?3.4	 ? Selection	 ?of	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?Organizations	 ?3.4.1	 ? Selection	 ?Criteria	 ?The	 ? selection	 ? of	 ? case	 ? study	 ? PSOs	 ? follows	 ? a	 ? replication	 ? rather	 ? than	 ? sampling	 ? logic,	 ?where	 ?cases	 ?are	 ?expected	 ?to	 ?have	 ?contrasting	 ?results	 ?from	 ?one	 ?another	 ?based	 ?on	 ?a	 ?theoretical	 ? framework,	 ? but	 ? in	 ? predictable	 ? ways	 ? (Yin	 ? 2009).	 ? All	 ? of	 ? the	 ? case	 ? study	 ?organizations	 ?operate	 ?within	 ?the	 ?same	 ?framework	 ?of	 ?the	 ?BC	 ?public	 ?sector.	 ?However,	 ?although	 ?PSOs	 ?within	 ?some	 ?sectors	 ?such	 ?as	 ?health	 ?or	 ?post-??secondary	 ?education	 ?have	 ?a	 ?similar	 ?primary	 ?mission,	 ? individual	 ?PSOs	 ?vary	 ?greatly	 ? in	 ?size,	 ? location	 ?and	 ? focus,	 ?and	 ?they	 ?have	 ?different	 ?available	 ?resources	 ?and	 ?operational	 ?characteristics.	 ?	 ?As	 ?noted	 ?from	 ?the	 ?literature	 ?review	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?2,	 ?one	 ?group	 ?of	 ?public	 ?organizations	 ?that	 ?has	 ?relatively	 ?better	 ?documentation	 ?and	 ?been	 ?subjected	 ?to	 ?previous	 ?research	 ?is	 ?post-??secondary	 ? institutions.	 ? This	 ? study	 ? will	 ? therefore	 ? focus	 ? on	 ? post-??secondary	 ?institutions	 ? in	 ? BC.	 ? There	 ? are	 ? 26	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? listed	 ? by	 ? the	 ? Climate	 ?Action	 ?Secretariat	 ?(CAS),	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?in	 ?their	 ?annual	 ?summaries	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ? programme	 ? (Note:	 ? UBC-??V	 ? and	 ?UBC-??Okanagan	 ?were	 ? counted	 ? as	 ? 2	 ? institutions	 ?and	 ? submitted	 ? separate	 ? CNARs	 ? previously,	 ? but	 ? for	 ? the	 ? 2012	 ? report	 ? they	 ? were	 ?combined	 ? into	 ? one	 ? report).	 ? These	 ? 26	 ? institutions	 ? are	 ? spread	 ? over	 ? a	 ? very	 ? large	 ?geographical	 ? area	 ? across	 ? all	 ? the	 ? major	 ? regions	 ? of	 ? BC.	 ? These	 ? regions	 ? have	 ? vastly	 ?different	 ?climatic	 ?characteristics	 ?and	 ?there	 ?may	 ?be	 ?large	 ?variations	 ?in	 ?weather	 ?from	 ?year	 ? to	 ? year	 ? in	 ? some	 ? regions.	 ? These	 ? may	 ? significantly	 ? affect	 ? PSOs?	 ? heating	 ? and	 ?	 ? 51	 ?cooling	 ?requirements,	 ?which	 ?in	 ?turn	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?their	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?The	 ?institutions	 ?also	 ?vary	 ?in	 ?size	 ?and	 ?programmatic	 ?focus,	 ?with	 ?some	 ?of	 ?them	 ?designated	 ? as	 ? comprehensive	 ? research	 ?universities	 ?while	 ? others	 ? are	 ? smaller	 ?colleges	 ?with	 ?a	 ?local	 ?or	 ?regional	 ?student	 ?recruitment	 ?focus	 ?or	 ?specialized	 ?academic	 ?programmes.	 ?	 ?To	 ? control	 ? for	 ? the	 ? effects	 ? of	 ? large	 ? climate	 ? variability	 ? from	 ?year	 ? to	 ? year	 ? across	 ? the	 ?vast	 ?areas	 ?and	 ?regions	 ?of	 ?BC,	 ?the	 ?case	 ?study	 ?organizations	 ?for	 ?this	 ?study	 ?are	 ?selected	 ?from	 ? among	 ? those	 ? located	 ? in	 ? the	 ? Lower	 ?Mainland	 ? of	 ? British	 ? Columbia,	 ? otherwise	 ?known	 ?as	 ? the	 ?Greater	 ?Vancouver	 ? region.	 ?There	 ?are	 ?10	 ? such	 ? institutions	 ? located	 ? in	 ?the	 ?Lower	 ?Mainland.	 ?Among	 ?these,	 ?institutions	 ?of	 ?different	 ?sizes	 ?are	 ?also	 ?chosen	 ?so	 ?that	 ?the	 ?research	 ?can	 ?explore	 ?the	 ?influence	 ?of	 ?size	 ?and	 ?resources,	 ?factors	 ?identified	 ?by	 ?(Stafford	 ?2011)	 ?as	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?affect	 ?adoption	 ?of	 ??sustainable?	 ?practices.	 ?Institutions	 ?at	 ?different	 ?stages	 ?of	 ?pursuing	 ??sustainability?	 ?will	 ?hopefully	 ?provide	 ?a	 ?perspective	 ?of	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?values	 ?and	 ?past	 ?experiences	 ?on	 ?current	 ?efforts	 ?and	 ?decisions.	 ?	 ?Based	 ? on	 ? a	 ? preliminary	 ? screening	 ? process,	 ? the	 ? following	 ? two	 ? groups	 ? of	 ? post-??secondary	 ?institutions	 ?at	 ?different	 ?stages	 ?and	 ?sophistication	 ?of	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?action	 ?have	 ?been	 ?identified:	 ?(a) Institutions	 ? that	 ? have	 ? undertaken	 ? climate	 ? change	 ? action	 ? (or	 ? more	 ? generally	 ??sustainability?)	 ? for	 ? many	 ? years	 ? prior	 ? to	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate,	 ? and	 ? have	 ? clear	 ?institutional	 ?processes	 ?in	 ?place	 ?for	 ?managing	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?action;	 ?and	 ?(b) Institutions	 ?that	 ?have	 ?only	 ?recently	 ?started	 ?paying	 ?serious	 ?attention	 ?to	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?action,	 ?or	 ?where	 ?climate	 ?mitigation	 ?became	 ?a	 ?priority	 ?when	 ?CNG	 ?was	 ?mandated.	 ?	 ? 52	 ?3.4.2	 ? Profile	 ?of	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?Organizations	 ?For	 ? the	 ? case	 ? study,	 ? two	 ? institutions	 ? are	 ? chosen	 ? from	 ? each	 ? of	 ? the	 ? two	 ? groups	 ?mentioned	 ? in	 ? the	 ? previous	 ? section.	 ? A	 ? brief	 ? profile	 ? of	 ? the	 ? 4	 ? selected	 ? case	 ? study	 ?organizations	 ?located	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Lower	 ?Mainland	 ?is	 ?provided	 ?in	 ?Table	 ?3.1.	 ?The	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?(UBC)	 ?is	 ?the	 ?largest	 ?post-??secondary	 ?institution	 ?in	 ?BC	 ?and	 ?among	 ?the	 ?largest	 ?in	 ?Canada.	 ?Simon	 ?Fraser	 ?University	 ?(SFU)	 ?is	 ?considered	 ?a	 ?medium-??sized	 ?comprehensive	 ? research	 ? university	 ? among	 ? Canadian	 ? universities	 ? and	 ? colleges.	 ?Douglas	 ?College	 ?(DO)	 ?and	 ?Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ?(VCC)	 ?represent	 ?medium-??sized	 ? colleges	 ?within	 ? the	 ?BC	 ?post-??secondary	 ? system,	 ?but	 ? they	 ?are	 ? small	 ? relative	 ? to	 ?the	 ?research	 ?universities.	 ?	 ?All	 ?4	 ? institutions	 ?experienced	 ?growth	 ? in	 ?enrolment,	 ?given	 ? increasing	 ?population	 ? in	 ?the	 ? province	 ? and	 ? healthy	 ? growth	 ? in	 ? the	 ? international	 ? student	 ? population	 ? during	 ?recent	 ?years.	 ?However,	 ?during	 ?the	 ?period	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012,	 ?the	 ?growth	 ?rate	 ?varied	 ?from	 ?1.2%	 ?for	 ?VCC	 ?to	 ?4.6%	 ?for	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?10.2%	 ?for	 ?DO.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 53	 ?Table	 ?3.1:	 ?Brief	 ?Profile	 ?of	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?Organizations	 ?	 ? UBC	 ? SFU	 ? DO	 ? VCC	 ?2012/13	 ?Budget	 ?Total	 ?Operating	 ?Revenue	 ?($	 ?mil)	 ? 921.45	 ? 448.27	 ? 105.15	 ? 106.27	 ?Number	 ?of	 ?Students	 ?(2010/11	 ?FTE)	 ? 40,961	 ? 25,278	 ? 9,046	 ? 7,918	 ?Number	 ?of	 ?Students	 ?(2012/13	 ?FTE)	 ? 42,848	 ? 26,521	 ? 9,973	 ? 8010	 ?Emissions	 ?offset	 ?in	 ?2010	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ? 61,649	 ? 17,695	 ? 1,960	 ? 2,993	 ?Offsets	 ?purchased	 ?for	 ?2010	 ?($	 ?mil)	 ? 1.541	 ? 0.442	 ? 0.049	 ? 0.075	 ?Emissions	 ?offset	 ?in	 ?2012	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ? 64,799	 ? 17,818	 ? 2,039	 ? 3,000	 ?Offsets	 ?purchased	 ?for	 ?2012	 ?($	 ?mil)	 ? 1.620	 ? 0.445	 ? 0.051	 ? 0.075	 ?2012	 ?Emissions	 ?per	 ?student	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e/student)	 ? 1.51	 ? 0.67	 ? 0.20	 ? 0.37	 ?Main	 ?sources	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?(2012)	 ? 	 ? 	 ? 	 ? 	 ?-??	 ?Buildings	 ? 97.1%	 ? 97.1%	 ? 88.8%	 ? 95.8%	 ?-??	 ?Fleet	 ? 2.0%	 ? 1.4%	 ? 0.1%	 ? 0%	 ?-??	 ?Paper	 ? 0.9%	 ? 1.5%	 ? 11.1%	 ? 4.2%	 ?Sources:	 ?(University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?2012a),	 ?UBC	 ?Planning	 ?&	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?(http://www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/students/students.htm),	 ?(Simon	 ?Fraser	 ?University	 ?2012a),	 ?SFU	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Planning	 ?website	 ?(www.sfu.ca/irp),	 ?Douglas	 ?College	 ?Finance	 ?Department	 ?website	 ?(http://www.douglas.bc.ca/employees/finance-??department.html),	 ?Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ?website	 ?(http://www.vcc.ca/about/college-??information/reports-??and-??publications/),	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2011),	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013),	 ?2010	 ?and	 ?2012	 ?Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Action	 ?Reports	 ?of	 ?UBC,	 ?SFU,	 ?DO	 ?and	 ?VCC.	 ?	 ? 54	 ?3.4.3	 ? Physical	 ?Infrastructure	 ?In	 ? terms	 ? of	 ? physical	 ? infrastructure,	 ? UBC	 ? has	 ? two	 ? major	 ? campuses,	 ? located	 ? in	 ?Vancouver,	 ? and	 ?Kelowna	 ? in	 ? the	 ?Okanagan	 ?Valley	 ?of	 ? the	 ? southern	 ?BC	 ? Interior.	 ?This	 ?study	 ?will	 ? focus	 ? on	 ? the	 ?Vancouver	 ? Campus,	 ?which	 ? comprises	 ? the	 ?main	 ?Point	 ?Grey	 ?Campus,	 ? the	 ?Downtown	 ?Vancouver	 ? site,	 ? the	 ?Great	 ?Northern	 ?Way	 ? Campus	 ? (shared	 ?with	 ?SFU,	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?Institute	 ?of	 ?Technology	 ?and	 ?Emily	 ?Carr	 ?University)	 ?and	 ?several	 ?other	 ?off-??campus	 ?locations	 ?including	 ?the	 ?Malcolm	 ?Knapp	 ?Research	 ?Forest	 ?in	 ?Maple	 ?Ridge,	 ?BC	 ?and	 ? the	 ?Dairy	 ?Education	 ?and	 ?Research	 ?Centre	 ?at	 ?Agassiz,	 ?BC.	 ?The	 ?Point	 ? Grey	 ? Campus,	 ? at	 ? more	 ? than	 ? 400	 ? hectares	 ? in	 ? area,	 ? includes	 ? about	 ? 200	 ? core	 ?academic	 ?buildings,	 ?university-??owned	 ?housing	 ?for	 ?more	 ?than	 ?9,000	 ?faculty,	 ?staff	 ?and	 ?students,	 ? a	 ? residential	 ? community	 ?where	 ?18,000	 ?people	 ? live	 ? and	 ? various	 ? ancillary	 ?buildings,	 ? conference	 ? and	 ? sports	 ? facilities	 ? and	 ? the	 ? UBC	 ? Farm.	 ? 	 ? The	 ? planning,	 ?development	 ?and	 ?operation	 ?of	 ?all	 ?these	 ?facilities	 ?are	 ?led	 ?by	 ?Campus	 ?and	 ?Community	 ?Planning,	 ? Infrastructure	 ? Development,	 ? Building	 ? Operations,	 ? and	 ? UBC	 ? Properties	 ?Trust.	 ?Private	 ?developers	 ?are	 ?also	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?the	 ?case	 ?of	 ?the	 ?residential	 ?community.	 ?In	 ? June	 ? 2010,	 ? responsibility	 ? for	 ? local	 ? land	 ? use	 ? planning	 ? at	 ? the	 ? UBC	 ? Point	 ? Grey	 ?Campus	 ?was	 ? transferred	 ? to	 ? the	 ?Province	 ?and	 ?UBC	 ?was	 ?given	 ? the	 ?ability	 ? to	 ?manage	 ?amendments	 ?to	 ?their	 ?Land	 ?Use	 ?Plan,	 ?subject	 ?to	 ?Ministerial	 ?approval.	 ?In	 ?this	 ?respect,	 ?UBC	 ?operates	 ?somewhat	 ?like	 ?a	 ?municipality.	 ?	 ?	 ?SFU	 ? has	 ? three	 ?major	 ? campuses	 ? in	 ? the	 ? Lower	 ?Mainland,	 ? on	 ? Burnaby	 ?Mountain,	 ? in	 ?Downtown	 ?Vancouver	 ?and	 ?in	 ?Surrey	 ?Central.	 ?These	 ?facilities	 ?are	 ?spread	 ?over	 ?an	 ?area	 ?of	 ? 157	 ?hectares	 ? and	 ?more	 ? than	 ?430,000	 ? square	 ?metres	 ? of	 ? floor	 ? space.	 ? The	 ? largest	 ?campus	 ?is	 ?situated	 ?on	 ?Burnaby	 ?Mountain	 ?and	 ?includes	 ?more	 ?than	 ?3-??dozen	 ?academic	 ?buildings,	 ?student	 ?residences	 ?and	 ?UniverCity,	 ?a	 ?residential	 ?community	 ?managed	 ?by	 ?SFU	 ? Community	 ? Trust	 ? with	 ? shops,	 ? services	 ? and	 ? amenities.	 ? Campus	 ? planning,	 ? real	 ?estate	 ? and	 ? property	 ? management,	 ? development	 ? of	 ? new	 ? buildings,	 ? maintenance,	 ?operation	 ?and	 ?renovation	 ?of	 ?buildings,	 ?grounds	 ?and	 ?utility	 ?systems	 ?across	 ?the	 ?three	 ?campuses	 ?are	 ?the	 ?responsibility	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?Department.	 ?	 ?	 ? 55	 ?Founded	 ? in	 ? 1970,	 ? DO	 ? has	 ? two	 ?major	 ? campuses,	 ? the	 ? New	 ?Westminster	 ? Campus	 ? in	 ?Downtown	 ?New	 ?Westminster,	 ?BC	 ?and	 ?the	 ?David	 ?Lam	 ?Campus	 ?in	 ?Coquitlam,	 ?BC.	 ?The	 ?David	 ?Lam	 ?Campus	 ?has	 ?recently	 ?completed	 ?a	 ?major	 ?$39	 ?million	 ?expansion,	 ?adding	 ?a	 ?large	 ? Health	 ? Sciences	 ? Centre	 ? which	 ? opened	 ? in	 ? January	 ? 2008	 ? (British	 ? Columbia	 ?Government	 ?2008a).	 ?The	 ?concourse	 ?in	 ?the	 ?New	 ?Westminster	 ?Campus	 ?was	 ?renovated	 ?in	 ? summer	 ? 2011	 ? (Wikipedia	 ? 2013a).	 ? The	 ? Facilities	 ? Services	 ? Department	 ? is	 ?responsible	 ?for	 ?planning	 ?and	 ?developing	 ?College	 ?facilities,	 ?operating	 ?related	 ?services	 ?and	 ?for	 ?the	 ?ongoing	 ?maintenance	 ?of	 ?the	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?grounds	 ?at	 ?both	 ?campuses.	 ?	 ?	 ?Founded	 ? in	 ?1965,	 ?VCC	 ?has	 ? two	 ?major	 ?campuses,	 ?one	 ? in	 ?Downtown	 ?Vancouver	 ?and	 ?the	 ? other	 ? on	 ?Broadway	 ? in	 ? East	 ? Vancouver.	 ? In	 ? 1983,	 ? the	 ?main	 ? campus	 ?was	 ?moved	 ?from	 ? the	 ? previous	 ? King	 ? Edward	 ? Centre	 ? location	 ? to	 ? its	 ? current	 ? location	 ? at	 ? 1155	 ?Broadway,	 ?now	 ?known	 ?as	 ?the	 ?Broadway	 ?Campus.	 ?In	 ?January	 ?2009,	 ?VCC's	 ?$55	 ?million	 ?Broadway	 ? Campus	 ? expansion	 ? project	 ? was	 ? completed	 ? and	 ? opened	 ? (Wikipedia	 ?2013b).	 ? The	 ? Facilities	 ? Management	 ? Department	 ? is	 ? responsible	 ? for	 ? the	 ? ongoing	 ?maintenance	 ?of	 ?the	 ?campuses.	 ?Long-??range	 ?facilities	 ?planning,	 ?including	 ?capital	 ?plans	 ?and	 ? oversight	 ? of	 ? land	 ? and	 ? facilities	 ? development,	 ? is	 ? overseen	 ? by	 ? the	 ? Facilities	 ?Development	 ?Committee	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Board	 ?of	 ?Governors.	 ?	 ?3.5	 ? Document	 ?Analysis	 ?As	 ? outlined	 ? in	 ? Section	 ? 3.2,	 ? the	 ? first	 ? phase	 ? of	 ? the	 ? study	 ? involves	 ? a	 ? preliminary	 ?quantitative	 ? analysis,	 ? which	 ? helps	 ? in	 ? the	 ? selection	 ? of	 ? case	 ? study	 ? organizations	 ?described	 ? in	 ? Section	 ? 3.4.	 ? Given	 ? that	 ? the	 ? mandate	 ? under	 ? study	 ? has	 ? only	 ? been	 ?implemented	 ? over	 ? a	 ? short	 ? period	 ? of	 ? time,	 ? the	 ? data	 ? available	 ? is	 ? not	 ? likely	 ? to	 ? be	 ?sufficient	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?conclusive	 ?evidence	 ?of	 ?trends	 ?or	 ?causation.	 ?Nonetheless,	 ?during	 ?the	 ? study	 ? period,	 ? some	 ? interesting	 ? facts	 ? may	 ? be	 ? observed	 ? in	 ? individual	 ? PSOs	 ? or	 ?groups	 ?of	 ?PSOs.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 56	 ?The	 ? quantitative	 ? analysis	 ? for	 ? this	 ? study	 ? uses	 ? GHG	 ? inventory	 ? data	 ? primarily	 ? from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012,	 ?which	 ?contains	 ?the	 ?complete	 ?set	 ?of	 ?official	 ?emissions	 ?data	 ?for	 ?all	 ?PSOs	 ?under	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate.	 ? This	 ? set	 ? is	 ? compiled	 ? using	 ? the	 ? government	 ? software	 ? for	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?calculation,	 ?SMARTTool,	 ?which	 ?is	 ?based	 ?on	 ?guidelines	 ?and	 ?emission	 ?factors	 ? issued	 ? by	 ? the	 ? CAS.	 ? Some	 ? PSOs,	 ? like	 ? UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU,	 ? have	 ? their	 ? own	 ? GHG	 ?emissions	 ? data	 ? prior	 ? to	 ? 2010,	 ? which	 ? use	 ? different	 ? assumptions	 ? or	 ? bases	 ? for	 ?calculation,	 ?making	 ?comparisons	 ?difficult.	 ?Since	 ?2010,	 ?all	 ?PSOs	 ?are	 ?required	 ?to	 ?enter	 ?their	 ?data	 ?using	 ?SMARTTool,	 ? from	 ?which	 ?offset	 ?requirements	 ?are	 ?then	 ?determined.	 ?In	 ?2012,	 ?an	 ?independent	 ?audit	 ?of	 ?9	 ?PSOs	 ?was	 ?conducted	 ?by	 ?Deloitte	 ?and	 ?Touche	 ?LLP	 ?to	 ?verify	 ?the	 ?accuracy	 ?of	 ?their	 ?2011	 ?consumption	 ?data	 ?entered	 ?into	 ?SMARTTool.	 ?	 ?Where	 ? available,	 ? additional	 ? data	 ? or	 ? details	 ? are	 ? obtained	 ? for	 ? some	 ? case	 ? study	 ?organizations	 ?over	 ?and	 ?above	 ?the	 ?official	 ?set	 ?of	 ?emissions	 ?data.	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?data	 ?is	 ?used	 ?as	 ?a	 ?supplement	 ?to	 ?the	 ?preliminary	 ?quantitative	 ?analysis	 ?to	 ?investigate	 ?whether	 ?there	 ?are	 ?any	 ?trends	 ?over	 ?a	 ?longer	 ?period	 ?of	 ?time.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Information	 ?for	 ?analyzing	 ?the	 ?responses	 ?of	 ?PSOs	 ?and	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?on	 ?PSOs	 ?are	 ?also	 ?obtained	 ?from	 ?public	 ?documents,	 ?including	 ?annual	 ?reports	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CAS	 ?and	 ? PCT,	 ? CNAR	 ? and	 ? annual	 ? sustainability	 ? reports	 ? of	 ? individual	 ? PSOs,	 ? and	 ? other	 ?progress	 ?reports	 ?on	 ?projects,	 ?emissions	 ?and	 ?offsets.	 ?The	 ? following	 ?are	 ?some	 ?of	 ? the	 ?main	 ? public	 ? documents	 ? that	 ? are	 ? available	 ? on	 ? the	 ? various	 ? topics	 ? covered	 ? by	 ? the	 ?study:	 ?(a) Definitions	 ? of	 ? carbon-??neutrality	 ? and	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? ?	 ? Greenhouse	 ? Gas	 ?Reduction	 ?Targets	 ?Act	 ?(GGRTA)	 ?and	 ?Regulations,	 ?public	 ?policy	 ?documents	 ?and	 ?guidelines	 ?issued	 ?by	 ?CAS,	 ?World	 ?Resources	 ?Institute	 ?GHG	 ?Protocol;	 ?(b) Actions	 ? taken	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? ?	 ? annual	 ? progress	 ? reports	 ? by	 ? CAS,	 ?CNAR	 ? (from	 ? all	 ? PSOs),	 ? PSO	 ? annual	 ? reports,	 ? accountability	 ? documents	 ? and	 ?special	 ?reports	 ?on	 ?sustainability	 ?or	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?action;	 ?	 ? 57	 ?(c) Sources	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?and	 ?offsets	 ?purchased	 ??	 ?CAS	 ?and	 ?PCT	 ?reports,	 ?CNAR,	 ?BC	 ?GHG	 ?inventory	 ?reports;	 ?and	 ?(d) Support	 ?mechanisms	 ??	 ?PSECA	 ?announcements	 ?and	 ?reports,	 ?PSO	 ?budgets	 ?and	 ?accountability	 ?documents.	 ?	 ?The	 ? findings	 ? from	 ? the	 ?document	 ? analysis	 ? and	 ?quantitative	 ? analysis	 ? are	 ?detailed	 ? in	 ?Chapter	 ?4.	 ?	 ?3.6	 ? Expert	 ?Interviews	 ?3.6.1	 ? Selection	 ?of	 ?Interviewees	 ?Structured	 ?and	 ?semi-??structured	 ?expert	 ?interviews	 ?of	 ?major	 ?stakeholders	 ?of	 ?the	 ?case	 ?study	 ? organizations	 ? are	 ? conducted	 ? to	 ? provide	 ? deeper	 ? insights	 ? into	 ? organizational	 ?conditions	 ?and	 ?to	 ?better	 ?understand	 ?the	 ?underlying	 ?rationale	 ?or	 ?nuances	 ?for	 ?actions	 ?or	 ? decisions.	 ? These	 ? stakeholders	 ? include	 ? senior	 ? administrators,	 ? planning	 ? or	 ?development	 ?managers,	 ? facilities	 ?managers	 ? and	 ? sustainability	 ?managers.	 ? They	 ? are	 ?selected	 ?such	 ?that	 ?the	 ?interviews	 ?can	 ?build	 ?up	 ?a	 ?qualitative	 ?picture	 ?of	 ?how	 ?decisions	 ?involving	 ? infrastructure	 ? project	 ? planning,	 ? development	 ? and	 ? implementation	 ? are	 ?made,	 ?and	 ?what	 ?factors	 ?or	 ?mechanisms	 ?help	 ?or	 ?hinder	 ?these	 ?decisions.	 ?	 ?	 ?A	 ?purposive	 ?sample	 ?of	 ? interviewees	 ?was	 ?identified	 ?based	 ?on	 ?their	 ?appointments	 ?in	 ?the	 ? case	 ? study	 ? organizations,	 ? whereby	 ? they	 ? are	 ? likely	 ? to	 ? have	 ? knowledge	 ? or	 ?expertise	 ?in	 ?the	 ?relevant	 ?issues.	 ?This	 ?sampling	 ?technique	 ?ensures	 ?that	 ?a	 ?diverse	 ?but	 ?representative	 ?set	 ?of	 ?informants	 ?from	 ?each	 ?organization	 ?will	 ?have	 ?the	 ?opportunity	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?comparative	 ?inputs	 ?that	 ?will	 ?facilitate	 ?an	 ?in-??depth	 ?examination	 ?of	 ?the	 ?issues	 ?being	 ? studied	 ? (Teddlie	 ? and	 ? Yu	 ? 2007).	 ? This	 ? technique	 ? is	 ? chosen	 ? to	 ? yield	 ? a	 ? greater	 ?depth	 ?of	 ? information	 ?and	 ? insight	 ?about	 ?the	 ? impacts	 ?of	 ? the	 ?mandate,	 ? including	 ?high	 ?quality	 ?narrative	 ?data	 ?from	 ?these	 ?carefully	 ?selected	 ?sources	 ?(Teddlie	 ?and	 ?Yu	 ?2007).	 ?	 ? 58	 ?A	 ?snowball	 ? sampling	 ?method	 ?was	 ?also	 ?used	 ? to	 ? complement	 ? the	 ?purposive	 ? sample.	 ?When	 ? certain	 ? names	 ? repeatedly	 ? come	 ? up	 ? in	 ? the	 ? course	 ? of	 ? the	 ? interviews,	 ? these	 ?people	 ?were	 ?also	 ?approached	 ?to	 ?be	 ?interviewed.	 ?The	 ?original	 ?plan	 ?was	 ?to	 ?approach	 ?between	 ?15	 ? to	 ?20	 ? expert	 ? interviewees	 ? from	 ? the	 ? relevant	 ? functional	 ? areas	 ? in	 ? the	 ?4	 ?organizations.	 ?The	 ?preliminary	 ?list	 ?of	 ?appointment	 ?holders	 ?identified	 ?for	 ?the	 ?expert	 ?interview	 ?is	 ?given	 ?in	 ?Table	 ?3.2.	 ?	 ?Table	 ?3.2:	 ?Preliminary	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Interviewees	 ?Functional	 ?Area	 ? Institution	 ?UBC	 ? SFU	 ? DO	 ? VCC	 ?Finance	 ? VP	 ?Finance,	 ?Resources	 ?&	 ?Operations	 ? VP	 ?Finance	 ?&	 ?Administration	 ? VP	 ?Finance	 ?&	 ?Administration	 ? VP	 ?Administration	 ?&	 ?CFO	 ?Campus	 ?Planning	 ? AVP	 ?Campus	 ?&	 ?Community	 ?Planning	 ? University	 ?Architect	 ? 	 ? 	 ?Infrastructure	 ?Development	 ? Managing	 ?Director,	 ?Infrastructure	 ?Development	 ?Development	 ?Manager	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?Facilities	 ?Management	 ? Managing	 ?Director,	 ?Building	 ?Operations	 ?Chief	 ?Facilities	 ?Officer;	 ?	 ?Energy	 ?Manager	 ?Director,	 ?Facilities	 ?Services;	 ?Manager,	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?Director,	 ?Facilities	 ?Management	 ?Sustainability	 ? Associate	 ?Provost,	 ?Sustainability;	 ?Director,	 ?Operational	 ?Sustainability	 ?Director	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office;	 ?Sustainability	 ?Coordinator	 ?	 ?	 ? Director,	 ?Safety/Security	 ?&	 ?Environment	 ?and	 ?Sustainability;	 ?Manager,	 ?Environment	 ?and	 ?Sustainability	 ?	 ? 59	 ?3.6.2	 ? Interview	 ?Protocol	 ?The	 ?structured/semi-??structured	 ?style	 ?of	 ?interview	 ?adopted	 ?provides	 ?the	 ?interviewer	 ?and	 ? interviewees	 ? the	 ? flexibility	 ? to	 ? make	 ? the	 ? best	 ? use	 ? of	 ? the	 ? allotted	 ? time	 ? for	 ? the	 ?interview	 ? to	 ? focus	 ? on	 ? aspects	 ? or	 ? issues	 ? that	 ? were	 ? particularly	 ? relevant	 ? and	 ?interesting,	 ?depending	 ?on	 ?the	 ?roles	 ?of	 ?the	 ?interviewees	 ?within	 ?their	 ?organization.	 ?	 ?A	 ? common	 ? set	 ? of	 ? interview	 ? questions	 ? was	 ? used	 ? for	 ? the	 ? interviews	 ? (Please	 ? see	 ?Appendix	 ? G).	 ? The	 ? interview	 ? questions	 ? seek	 ? to	 ? improve	 ? our	 ? understanding	 ? of	 ? the	 ?following	 ? key	 ? areas	 ? related	 ? to	 ? infrastructure	 ? development	 ? in	 ? these	 ? institutions,	 ?which	 ?are	 ?identified	 ?in	 ?the	 ?literature	 ?review	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?2:	 ?(a) The	 ?historical	 ? and	 ? institutional	 ? context	 ? for	 ? the	 ?development	 ?of	 ? sustainability	 ?efforts	 ?or	 ?climate	 ?actions	 ?in	 ?these	 ?institutions;	 ?(b) How	 ?climate	 ?actions	 ?have	 ?changed,	 ?if	 ?any,	 ?since	 ?CNG	 ?was	 ?mandated;	 ?(c) How	 ?decisions	 ?on	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?are	 ?made;	 ?(d) What	 ?factors	 ?facilitate	 ?or	 ?constrain	 ?such	 ?decisions;	 ?and	 ?	 ?(e) What	 ? support	 ?mechanisms	 ?can	 ?help	 ?move	 ? these	 ? institutions	 ? towards	 ?greater	 ?investment	 ?in	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?Further,	 ?the	 ?interview	 ?questions	 ?also	 ?seek	 ?to	 ?understand	 ?whether	 ?and	 ?how	 ?learning	 ?has	 ? occurred	 ? among	 ? PSOs,	 ? and	 ? what	 ? other	 ? forums	 ? or	 ? channels	 ? can	 ? be	 ? used	 ? to	 ?increase	 ?such	 ?learning	 ?and	 ?sharing	 ?of	 ?innovative	 ?solutions.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?findings	 ?of	 ?the	 ?expert	 ?interviews	 ?are	 ?detailed	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?5.	 ? 	 ?	 ? 60	 ?4.	 ? Document	 ?Analysis	 ?4.1	 ? Introduction	 ?The	 ? document	 ? analysis	 ? carried	 ? out	 ? for	 ? this	 ? study	 ? relies	 ? heavily	 ? on	 ? reports	 ? and	 ?documents	 ? in	 ? the	 ? public	 ? domain,	 ? obtained	 ? via	 ? the	 ? public	 ? websites	 ? of	 ? the	 ? BC	 ?Government,	 ? ministries,	 ? agencies	 ? and	 ? PSOs,	 ? and	 ? through	 ? internet	 ? searches.	 ?Additional	 ? information,	 ? especially	 ? quantitative	 ? data,	 ? is	 ? obtained	 ? from	 ? the	 ?participating	 ?case	 ?study	 ?PSOs.	 ?	 ?The	 ? main	 ? reports	 ? and	 ? documents	 ? used	 ? for	 ? analyzing	 ? the	 ? responses	 ? of	 ? PSOs	 ? and	 ?impacts	 ? of	 ? the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ? on	 ?PSOs	 ? include	 ? annual	 ? reports	 ? of	 ? the	 ?CAS	 ? and	 ?PCT,	 ?CNARs	 ?and	 ?annual	 ?reports	 ?of	 ?the	 ?case	 ?study	 ?PSOs,	 ?and	 ?other	 ?reports	 ?and	 ?web	 ?pages	 ?on	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects,	 ?emissions	 ?and	 ?offsets.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?list	 ?of	 ?documents	 ?reviewed	 ?and	 ?analyzed	 ?is	 ?given	 ?in	 ?Appendix	 ?A	 ?which	 ?include,	 ?among	 ?others,	 ?the	 ?relevant	 ?BC	 ?legislation	 ?(GGRTA	 ?and	 ?Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government	 ?Regulation	 ? (CNGR)),	 ? annual	 ? progress	 ? reports	 ? by	 ? CAS,	 ? CNARs,	 ? PSO	 ? annual	 ? reports,	 ?budget	 ? and	 ? accountability	 ? documents,	 ? and	 ? special	 ? reports	 ? on	 ? sustainability	 ? or	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?action.	 ?	 ?	 ?Sections	 ?4.2	 ?and	 ?4.3	 ?highlight	 ?some	 ?notable	 ?efforts	 ? taken	 ?by	 ? the	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?as	 ?a	 ?whole	 ?and	 ?the	 ?4	 ?selected	 ?case	 ?study	 ?PSOs,	 ?both	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?and	 ?since	 ?then,	 ?based	 ?on	 ? the	 ? review	 ?of	 ?documents.	 ? Section	 ?4.4	 ?presents	 ? the	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?data,	 ?while	 ?Section	 ?4.5	 ?provides	 ?the	 ?analysis	 ?of	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?data	 ?of	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU.	 ?Energy	 ?consumption	 ?data	 ?for	 ?DO	 ?and	 ?VCC	 ?is	 ?not	 ?available.	 ?	 ?	 ? 61	 ?4.2	 ? Actions	 ?Taken	 ?4.2.1	 ? The	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?BC?s	 ? GGRTA	 ? (British	 ? Columbia	 ? Government	 ? 2007)	 ? and	 ? CNGR	 ? (British	 ? Columbia	 ?Government	 ?2008b)	 ?require	 ?all	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?measure,	 ?reduce	 ?and	 ?offset	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ? their	 ? buildings,	 ? vehicle	 ? fleets	 ? and	 ? paper	 ? use	 ? from	 ? the	 ? calendar	 ? year	 ? 2010	 ?onwards.	 ?The	 ?GGRTA	 ?also	 ?requires	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?make,	 ?beginning	 ?with	 ?the	 ?calendar	 ?year	 ?2008,	 ?annual	 ?public	 ?reports	 ?(i.e.	 ?the	 ?CNAR)	 ?that	 ?include	 ?a	 ?description	 ?of	 ?the	 ?actions	 ?taken	 ? by	 ? the	 ? provincial	 ? government	 ? and	 ? PSOs	 ? in	 ? the	 ? relevant	 ? calendar	 ? year	 ? to	 ?minimize	 ? their	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? and	 ? their	 ? plans	 ? to	 ? continue	 ? minimizing	 ? those	 ?emissions	 ?(British	 ?Columbia	 ?Government	 ?2007).	 ?	 ?The	 ?CAS	 ?coordinates	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?activities	 ?across	 ?the	 ?BC	 ?Government.	 ?When	 ?first	 ?established	 ? in	 ? 2008,	 ? CAS	 ? reported	 ?directly	 ? to	 ? the	 ?Premier?s	 ?Office,	 ? but	 ? it	 ? is	 ? now	 ?a	 ?unit	 ? reporting	 ? to	 ? the	 ? Minister	 ? of	 ? Environment.	 ? CAS	 ? works	 ? with	 ? other	 ? ministries,	 ?government	 ?agencies	 ?and	 ?Crown	 ?Corporations	 ?to	 ?develop	 ?policies	 ?to	 ?support	 ?CNG.	 ?It	 ?issues	 ?guidelines	 ?on	 ?the	 ?format	 ?and	 ?reporting	 ?requirements	 ?for	 ?CNAR	 ?and	 ?produces	 ?an	 ? annual	 ? summary	 ? of	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? efforts	 ? towards	 ? CNG.	 ? The	 ? first	 ? report	 ? was	 ?published	 ?for	 ?calendar	 ?year	 ?2008	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2009).	 ?	 ?The	 ?main	 ?source	 ?of	 ?information	 ?on	 ?actions	 ?taken	 ?by	 ?the	 ?BC	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?and	 ?PSOs	 ?therefore	 ? include	 ? the	 ? annual	 ? summary	 ? reports	 ? for	 ? the	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? by	 ? CAS	 ? and	 ?CNAR	 ? of	 ? individual	 ? PSOs.	 ? These	 ? are	 ? all	 ? available	 ? at	 ? the	 ? Ministry	 ? of	 ? Environment	 ?website	 ?(URL:	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/mitigation/cnar.html).	 ?	 ?The	 ? BC	 ? government,	 ? led	 ? by	 ? Shared	 ? Services	 ? BC,	 ? developed	 ? its	 ? own	 ? web-??based	 ?applications	 ?to	 ?assist	 ?with	 ?GHG	 ?measurement	 ?and	 ?reporting.	 ??SMARTTool?	 ?calculates	 ?and	 ? reports	 ? the	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ?PSO	 ?buildings,	 ? supplies	 ? (paper)	 ? and	 ? fleet	 ? vehicles	 ?	 ? 62	 ?and	 ?equipment.	 ??SMARTTEC?,	 ?the	 ?SMART	 ?Travel	 ?Emissions	 ?Calculator,	 ?computes	 ?the	 ?GHGs	 ? from	 ? government	 ? business	 ? travel	 ? and	 ? reports	 ? the	 ? emissions	 ? through	 ?SMARTTool.	 ?The	 ?emission	 ? factors	 ?and	 ?methodologies	 ?used	 ?by	 ?both	 ?applications	 ? to	 ?estimate	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? are	 ? documented	 ? in	 ? the	 ? ?2012	 ? B.C.	 ? Best	 ? Practices	 ?Methodology	 ?For	 ?Quantifying	 ?Greenhouse	 ?Gas	 ?Emissions?	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012g)	 ?and	 ?earlier	 ?versions	 ?of	 ?the	 ?document.	 ?Initially,	 ?the	 ?administration	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?SMARTTool	 ?was	 ? shared	 ? by	 ? all	 ? PSOs	 ? that	 ? are	 ? required	 ? to	 ? use	 ? the	 ? software,	 ? which	 ?imposed	 ? an	 ? additional	 ? financial	 ? burden	 ? on	 ? PSOs.	 ? However,	 ? responding	 ? to	 ?complaints	 ? from	 ? PSOs	 ? (Ministry	 ? of	 ? Environment,	 ? B.C.	 ? 2012a),	 ? the	 ? Government	 ?decided	 ? that	 ? from	 ?Fiscal	 ?Year	 ?2012/13,	 ? this	 ? cost	 ? (approximately	 ?$850,000)	 ?would	 ?be	 ?absorbed	 ?by	 ?the	 ?PCT	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012b).	 ?	 ?The	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?declared	 ?itself	 ?to	 ?be	 ??carbon	 ?neutral?	 ?since	 ?2010,	 ?according	 ?to	 ?the	 ?definition	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?neutrality	 ?in	 ?the	 ?GGRTA	 ?(British	 ?Columbia	 ?Government	 ?2007).	 ?In	 ? order	 ? to	 ? be	 ? ?carbon	 ? neutral?,	 ? the	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? spent	 ? $18.8	 ?million	 ? to	 ? purchase	 ?752,298	 ? tonnes	 ? of	 ? offsets	 ? for	 ? 2012	 ? emissions.	 ? Although	 ? PSOs	 ? are	 ? required	 ? under	 ?GGRTA	 ? to	 ? report	 ? and	 ? offset	 ? their	 ? emissions	 ? only	 ? from	 ? 2010,	 ? most	 ? PSOs	 ? started	 ?planning	 ?or	 ?taking	 ?action	 ?soon	 ?after	 ?the	 ?announcement	 ?of	 ?CNG	 ?in	 ?2007.	 ?	 ?	 ?All	 ?PSOs	 ?have,	 ?at	 ?the	 ?minimum,	 ?completed	 ?their	 ?organizational	 ?GHG	 ?inventories	 ?for	 ?2010	 ? up	 ? to	 ? 2012	 ? using	 ? SMARTTool	 ? for	 ? ?in-??scope?	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? and	 ? reported	 ?annually	 ?on	 ?actions	 ?taken	 ?and	 ?planned	 ?since	 ?2008.	 ?For	 ?some	 ?PSOs,	 ? this	 ? is	 ? the	 ? first	 ?time	 ? that	 ? they	 ?have	 ?an	 ? inventory	 ?of	 ? their	 ?main	 ?energy	 ? sources	 ? and	 ? the	 ?associated	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?These	 ?inventories	 ?can	 ?enable	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?benchmark	 ?performance	 ?and	 ?identify	 ?more	 ?opportunities	 ?for	 ?reducing	 ?their	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?Beyond	 ?measuring,	 ?however,	 ?different	 ?PSOs	 ?have	 ?demonstrated	 ?varying	 ?degrees	 ?of	 ?action	 ?on	 ?climate	 ?change.	 ?It	 ?appears	 ?that	 ?most	 ?PSOs	 ?have	 ?taken	 ?some	 ?actions,	 ?such	 ?as	 ? lighting	 ? or	 ? energy	 ? efficiency	 ? retrofits.	 ? Many	 ? of	 ? the	 ? PSOs	 ? have	 ? taken	 ? the	 ?	 ? 63	 ?opportunity,	 ?within	 ?renovation	 ?projects	 ?or	 ?new	 ?building	 ?developments,	 ?to	 ?increase	 ?their	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?or	 ?reduce	 ?energy	 ?consumption.	 ?Whether	 ? these	 ?are	 ?small	 ?or	 ?large	 ? scale	 ? projects,	 ? they	 ? should	 ? reduce	 ? energy	 ? consumption	 ? or	 ?GHG	 ? emissions,	 ? if	 ?not	 ?absolutely,	 ?at	 ?least	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?a	 ? ?business-??as-??usual?	 ?scenario.	 ?In	 ?2007,	 ?BC	 ?has	 ?also	 ? committed	 ? that	 ? all	 ? new	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? buildings	 ? or	 ? major	 ? renovations	 ? must	 ?target	 ?Leadership	 ?in	 ?Energy	 ?and	 ?Environmental	 ?Design	 ?(LEED)	 ?Gold	 ?certification.	 ?By	 ?2010,	 ?BC	 ?PSOs	 ?had	 ?approximately	 ?105	 ?LEED	 ?Gold	 ?projects	 ?completed	 ?or	 ?underway,	 ?with	 ? some	 ?choosing	 ? to	 ?go	 ?even	 ? further	 ?by	 ?pursuing	 ? the	 ?highest	 ?LEED	 ?certification	 ?level	 ?of	 ?Platinum	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2011).	 ?	 ?	 ?However,	 ? such	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? usually	 ? cost	 ? much	 ? more	 ? than	 ? a	 ?straightforward	 ?replacement.	 ?They	 ?also	 ?entail	 ?large	 ?upfront	 ?capital	 ?investments	 ?that	 ?produce	 ?a	 ?stream	 ?of	 ?savings	 ?over	 ?the	 ?life	 ?of	 ?the	 ?projects.	 ?Examples	 ?of	 ?transformative	 ?projects	 ? that	 ? significantly	 ? reduced	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? include	 ? UNBC?s	 ? $16	 ? million	 ?biomass	 ?gasification	 ?system	 ?project1	 ?that	 ?reduces	 ?GHG	 ?by	 ?3,500	 ?tonnes	 ?per	 ?year	 ?and	 ?creates	 ? annual	 ? savings	 ? of	 ? $500,000,	 ? and	 ? UBC?s	 ? $88	 ? million	 ? steam	 ? to	 ? hot	 ? water	 ?conversion	 ?project	 ?that	 ?is	 ?expected	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?11,000	 ?tonnes	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?per	 ?year	 ?and	 ?$4	 ?million	 ?annually	 ?in	 ?energy	 ?savings	 ?when	 ?fully	 ?completed.	 ?	 ?	 ?4.2.2	 ? New	 ?Capital	 ?Funding	 ?As	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?initiative	 ?to	 ?kick-??start	 ?capital	 ?efforts	 ?by	 ?PSOs,	 ?the	 ?BC	 ?Government	 ?launched	 ? a	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? energy	 ? conservation	 ? capital	 ? fund	 ? in	 ? 2008.	 ? The	 ? original	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?Energy	 ?Conservation	 ?Agreement	 ?(PSECA)	 ?was	 ?created	 ?as	 ?a	 ?partnership	 ?between	 ?BC	 ?Hydro	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Government	 ?of	 ?BC.	 ?A	 ?sum	 ?of	 ?$75	 ?million	 ?over	 ?three	 ?years	 ?was	 ? committed	 ? during	 ? Budget	 ? 2008	 ? to	 ? help	 ? PSOs	 ? reduce	 ? GHG	 ? emissions,	 ? energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?operating	 ?costs,	 ?to	 ?support	 ?the	 ?government	 ?in	 ?achieving	 ?its	 ?goal	 ?of	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?1	 ?An	 ?interviewee	 ?from	 ?SFU	 ?estimated	 ?that	 ?a	 ?conventional	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?boiler	 ?with	 ?an	 ?equivalent	 ?capacity	 ?could	 ?be	 ?purchased	 ?for	 ?about	 ?$1.5	 ?million.	 ?	 ?	 ? 64	 ?carbon	 ? neutrality.	 ? In	 ? June	 ? 2010,	 ? Terasen	 ? Gas,	 ? now	 ? FortisBC,	 ? became	 ? a	 ? PSECA	 ?partner.	 ? The	 ? new	 ? agreement	 ? leveraged	 ? FortisBC's	 ? incentives	 ? to	 ? help	 ? build	 ? energy	 ?efficiency	 ? capacity	 ? across	 ? the	 ? public	 ? sector.	 ? SolarBC	 ? is	 ? also	 ? working	 ? with	 ? the	 ?Government	 ?of	 ?BC	 ?to	 ?promote	 ?solar	 ?hot	 ?water	 ?and	 ?air	 ?heating	 ?systems	 ?and	 ?leverage	 ?federal	 ? funding	 ? through	 ? Natural	 ? Resources	 ? Canada	 ? (NRCan)	 ? (Ministry	 ? of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2011;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013b).	 ?	 ?Through	 ?3	 ?rounds	 ?of	 ?competitive	 ?applications,	 ?PSECA	 ?has	 ?approved	 ?funding	 ?for	 ?247	 ?energy	 ? projects	 ? in	 ? schools,	 ? hospitals,	 ? colleges,	 ? universities	 ? and	 ? other	 ? government	 ?buildings	 ? across	 ? the	 ? province.	 ? When	 ? completed,	 ? those	 ? projects	 ? are	 ? expected	 ? to	 ?reduce	 ?carbon	 ?output	 ?by	 ?36,500	 ?tonnes	 ?and	 ?save	 ?organizations	 ?about	 ?$12.6	 ?million	 ?in	 ?annual	 ?energy	 ?costs	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013b).	 ?	 ?Capital	 ?funding	 ?was	 ?not	 ?provided	 ?for	 ?the	 ?PSECA	 ?programme	 ?in	 ?Fiscal	 ?Year	 ?2011/12.	 ?However,	 ? in	 ? response	 ? to	 ? pressure	 ? from	 ? PSOs	 ? and	 ? the	 ? public,	 ? the	 ? provincial	 ?government	 ? announced	 ? a	 ? new	 ? $5-??million	 ? capital	 ? programme	 ? in	 ? 2012	 ? that	 ? is	 ?available	 ? to	 ? school	 ? districts	 ? for	 ? energy-??efficiency	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? will	 ? lower	 ? their	 ?carbon	 ?emissions.	 ? 	 ?Starting	 ?in	 ?Fiscal	 ?Year	 ?2012/13,	 ?the	 ?new	 ?K-??12	 ?energy-??efficiency	 ?capital	 ? programme	 ? or	 ? Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Capital	 ? Programme	 ? (CNCP)	 ? was	 ? made	 ?available	 ?to	 ?boards	 ?of	 ?education	 ?through	 ?the	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Education.	 ?The	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?available	 ? funding	 ?was	 ? set	 ? to	 ? be	 ? equal	 ? to	 ? or	 ? greater	 ? than	 ? the	 ? total	 ? paid	 ? by	 ? school	 ?boards	 ? each	 ? year	 ? for	 ? purchases	 ? of	 ? carbon	 ? offsets	 ? from	 ? the	 ? PCT	 ? (Ministry	 ? of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012f).	 ?	 ?Another	 ?programme,	 ?which	 ?is	 ?unrelated	 ?to	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ?but	 ?which	 ?BC?s	 ?post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? have	 ? taken	 ? advantage	 ? of,	 ? is	 ? the	 ? Knowledge	 ? Infrastructure	 ?Programme	 ?(KIP).	 ?The	 ?KIP	 ? is	 ?a	 ? federal	 ?programme,	 ? introduced	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?Canada?s	 ?Economic	 ? Action	 ? Plan.	 ? It	 ? was	 ? a	 ? two-??year,	 ? $2-??billion	 ? economic	 ? stimulus	 ? plan	 ? to	 ?revitalize	 ? facilities	 ? at	 ? universities	 ? and	 ? colleges	 ? across	 ? Canada.	 ? The	 ? programme	 ?	 ? 65	 ?invested	 ? in	 ? over	 ? 500	 ? projects	 ? at	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions.	 ? New	 ? buildings	 ?were	 ?constructed	 ?and	 ?existing	 ?facilities	 ?received	 ?needed	 ?upgrades	 ?that	 ? improved	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ? of	 ? these	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? and	 ? addressed	 ? urgent	 ? deferred	 ?maintenance	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?In	 ?BC,	 ?42	 ?projects	 ?received	 ?KIP	 ?funding	 ?totaling	 ?$237	 ?million.	 ?Thirty	 ? three	 ? of	 ? these	 ? projects	 ? involved	 ? energy	 ? efficiency	 ? improvements,	 ? including	 ?renewal	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Shrum	 ?Science	 ?Centre	 ?at	 ?SFU,	 ?installation	 ?of	 ?a	 ??green?	 ?roof	 ?at	 ?DO	 ?and	 ?upgrade/renewal	 ?of	 ?building	 ?envelope	 ?and	 ?boilers	 ?at	 ?VCC	 ?(Industry	 ?Canada	 ?2013).	 ?	 ?4.2.3	 ? Learning	 ?The	 ? CAS	 ? holds	 ? an	 ? annual	 ? event	 ? (Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Symposium)	 ? to	 ? celebrate	 ? the	 ?achievements	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate,	 ? which	 ? is	 ? an	 ? opportunity	 ? for	 ? PSOs	 ? to	 ? share	 ?success	 ? stories	 ? and	 ? experiences	 ? in	 ? implementing	 ? the	 ?mandate.	 ? CAS	 ? also	 ? conducts	 ?several	 ? workshops,	 ? seminars	 ? and	 ? training	 ? sessions	 ? both	 ? online	 ? and	 ? in	 ? various	 ?locations	 ? across	 ? BC,	 ? aimed	 ? at	 ? providing	 ? information	 ? to	 ? those	 ? involved	 ? in	 ? the	 ?mandate	 ?on	 ?CNAR	 ?reporting	 ?requirements,	 ?updates	 ?to	 ?SMARTTool	 ?software,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?topics	 ?like	 ?climate	 ?change,	 ?energy	 ?saving	 ?and	 ?energy-??related	 ?tools.	 ?Some	 ?of	 ?these	 ?events	 ?are	 ?run	 ?jointly	 ?with	 ?partners	 ?like	 ?BC	 ?Hydro,	 ?FortisBC	 ?and	 ?NRCan.	 ?	 ?	 ?CAS	 ? provides	 ? support	 ? to	 ? the	 ? LiveSmart	 ? BC	 ? Climate	 ? Leaders	 ? Community	 ?(http://www.livesmartbccommunity.ca),	 ?a	 ?social	 ?media	 ?site	 ?built	 ?and	 ?administered	 ?by	 ? the	 ? CAS	 ? to	 ? support	 ? the	 ? province's	 ? climate	 ? action	 ? goals	 ? by	 ? providing	 ? tools	 ? and	 ?resources	 ?to	 ?individuals	 ?and	 ?organizations	 ?to	 ?help	 ?them	 ?reduce	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?This	 ? is	 ?a	 ?collaborative	 ?space	 ? for	 ? individuals	 ?and	 ?organizations	 ? to	 ?share	 ? their	 ? ideas	 ?and	 ?successes,	 ?ask	 ?questions	 ?of	 ?their	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?colleagues,	 ?and	 ?build	 ?upon	 ?the	 ?collective	 ?knowledge	 ?and	 ?experience	 ?of	 ?others	 ?who	 ?are	 ?working	 ?on	 ?Climate	 ?Action,	 ?conservation,	 ?and	 ?sustainability	 ? in	 ?BC.	 ?This	 ?community	 ?complements	 ? the	 ?regularly	 ?occurring	 ? regional	 ? climate	 ? action	 ? mobilization	 ? events	 ? happening	 ? throughout	 ? BC.	 ?	 ? 66	 ?Results	 ? from	 ? those	 ? events	 ? are	 ? posted	 ? at	 ? the	 ? site	 ? for	 ? further	 ? dialogue	 ? and	 ?conversation	 ?(Climate	 ?Action	 ?Secretariat,	 ?Ministy	 ?of	 ?Environment	 ?BC	 ?2013).	 ?	 ?4.2.4	 ? The	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?(UBC)	 ?Among	 ?BC?s	 ?post-??secondary	 ?institutions,	 ?UBC	 ?Vancouver	 ?Campus	 ?has	 ?been	 ?a	 ?leader	 ?in	 ?campus	 ?sustainability	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?action.	 ?Beginning	 ?with	 ?the	 ?1990	 ?signing	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Talloires	 ?Declaration,	 ?a	 ?ten-??point	 ?action	 ?plan	 ?for	 ?incorporating	 ?sustainability	 ?and	 ? environmental	 ? literacy	 ? in	 ? teaching,	 ? research,	 ? operations	 ? and	 ? outreach	 ? at	 ?colleges	 ? and	 ? universities,	 ? and	 ? followed	 ? by	 ? establishment	 ? of	 ? the	 ? Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ? Office	 ? in	 ? 1998,	 ? UBC	 ? continued	 ? to	 ? set	 ? aggressive	 ? targets	 ? in	 ? 2010	 ? to	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?33%	 ?by	 ?2015,	 ?67%	 ?by	 ?2020,	 ?and	 ?100%	 ?by	 ?2050,	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?2007	 ?levels	 ?(University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?2010).	 ?	 ?One	 ?of	 ?UBC?s	 ?major	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?projects,	 ?Electrek,	 ?retrofitted	 ?lighting	 ?in	 ?the	 ?30	 ?largest	 ?core	 ?academic	 ?buildings	 ?at	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?was	 ?completed	 ? in	 ?2002.	 ?From	 ?2001	 ?to	 ?2008,	 ?UBC	 ?undertook	 ?the	 ?EcoTrek	 ?project,	 ?the	 ?largest	 ?energy	 ?and	 ?water	 ?retrofit	 ?at	 ?a	 ?Canadian	 ?campus	 ?at	 ?the	 ?time,	 ?which	 ?retrofitted	 ?288	 ?buildings	 ?on	 ?campus,	 ?resulting	 ?in	 ? annual	 ? reduction	 ?of	 ?8,000	 ? tonnes	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? and	 ? savings	 ?of	 ? $4.2	 ?million	 ?per	 ? year	 ? in	 ? energy	 ? and	 ? water	 ? consumption	 ? (UBC	 ? Campus	 ? Sustainability	 ? Office	 ?2009).	 ?UBC	 ?reached	 ?its	 ?Kyoto	 ?Protocol	 ?target	 ?in	 ?2007,	 ?reducing	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?academic	 ?buildings	 ?to	 ?6%	 ?below	 ?1990	 ?levels.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ? EcoTrek	 ? project	 ? employed	 ? an	 ? Energy	 ? Service	 ? Company	 ? (ESCO)	 ?model,	 ?where	 ?UBC	 ? entered	 ? into	 ? an	 ? energy	 ? performance	 ? contract	 ? with	 ? MCW	 ? Custom	 ? Energy	 ?Solutions	 ? Ltd.	 ? Under	 ? the	 ? contract,	 ? the	 ? ESCO	 ? undertook	 ? energy	 ? audits	 ? of	 ? campus	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?implemented	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?and	 ?conservation	 ?measures.	 ?The	 ?ESCO	 ?guaranteed	 ? a	 ?minimum	 ? level	 ? of	 ? savings,	 ? and	 ? this	 ? guarantee	 ? helped	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? the	 ?performance	 ? risk	 ? to	 ? UBC,	 ? which	 ? facilitated	 ? financing	 ? and	 ? approval	 ? of	 ? this	 ? large	 ?	 ? 67	 ?project.	 ? The	 ? capital	 ? cost	 ? of	 ? the	 ? project	 ? was	 ? about	 ? $39	 ? million	 ? and	 ? was	 ? provided	 ?through	 ?a	 ? loan	 ? from	 ?the	 ?University,	 ?and	 ? incentives	 ? totaling	 ?nearly	 ?$4	 ?million	 ? from	 ?BC	 ?Hydro,	 ? contingent	 ?on	 ?realizing	 ? the	 ?projected	 ?electricity	 ?savings	 ?during	 ? the	 ? first	 ?year	 ?after	 ?completion	 ?of	 ?the	 ?infrastructure	 ?retrofit.	 ?	 ?UBC	 ?established	 ?a	 ?Technical	 ?Advisory	 ?Committee	 ?of	 ?academic,	 ?operations,	 ?staff	 ?and	 ?student	 ?members	 ?in	 ?2007	 ?to	 ?measure	 ?its	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?The	 ?initial	 ?inventory	 ?used	 ?the	 ?World	 ?Resources	 ?Institute	 ?Greenhouse	 ?Gas	 ?Protocol	 ?to	 ?quantify	 ?2006	 ?emissions,	 ?which	 ? included	 ? direct	 ? and	 ? indirect	 ? emissions	 ? (Scope	 ? 1	 ? and	 ? Scope	 ? 2),	 ? as	 ? well	 ? as	 ?optional	 ?emissions	 ?(Scope	 ?3).	 ?	 ?Coinciding	 ?with	 ?the	 ?BC	 ?Government?s	 ?mandating	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?neutrality,	 ?UBC	 ?President	 ?Stephen	 ?Toope	 ?and	 ?five	 ?other	 ?BC	 ?university	 ?and	 ?college	 ?presidents	 ?reaffirmed	 ?their	 ?commitment	 ? by	 ? being	 ? the	 ? first	 ? to	 ? sign	 ? the	 ? ?University	 ? and	 ? College	 ? Presidents?	 ?Climate	 ?Change	 ?Statement	 ?of	 ?Action	 ?for	 ?Canada?	 ?in	 ?2008.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ? 2011,	 ?UBC	 ? opened	 ? the	 ? Centre	 ? for	 ? Interactive	 ?Research	 ? on	 ? Sustainability	 ? (CIRS)	 ?and	 ?proceeded	 ?with	 ?the	 ?Bioenergy	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Demonstration	 ?Facility	 ?(BRDF)	 ?and	 ?the	 ? steam	 ? to	 ? hot	 ? water	 ? conversion	 ? project.	 ? The	 ? $34-??million	 ? BRDF	 ? project,	 ? a	 ?partnership	 ? with	 ? Vancouver-??based	 ? Nexterra	 ? and	 ? General	 ? Electric,	 ? is	 ? expected	 ? to	 ?eliminate	 ? 9%	 ? of	 ? campus	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? per	 ? year	 ? by	 ? reducing	 ? natural	 ? gas	 ?consumption	 ? used	 ? for	 ? generating	 ? steam.	 ? The	 ? $88-??million	 ? steam	 ? to	 ? hot	 ? water	 ?conversion	 ? project,	 ? when	 ? completed,	 ? will	 ? replace	 ? 14	 ? kilometres	 ? of	 ? aging	 ? steam	 ?system	 ? pipeline	 ? infrastructure,	 ? reducing	 ? emissions	 ? by	 ? 22%	 ? and	 ? saving	 ? up	 ? to	 ? $4	 ?million	 ? a	 ? year	 ? in	 ? energy	 ? and	 ? operational	 ? costs.	 ? From	 ? 2008	 ? to	 ? 2012,	 ? UBC	 ? also	 ?undertook	 ? several	 ? lighting	 ? and	 ? energy	 ? retrofit	 ? projects,	 ? including	 ? the	 ? Continuous	 ?Optimization	 ?Programme	 ?(COP)	 ?with	 ?BC	 ?Hydro,	 ?and	 ?replacement	 ?of	 ?older	 ?vehicles	 ?with	 ?hybrid	 ?and	 ?electric	 ?vehicles.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 68	 ?New	 ? energy	 ? performance	 ? requirements	 ? for	 ? new	 ? construction	 ? and	 ? major	 ?renovations,	 ? including	 ? student	 ? residences,	 ? offices,	 ? classrooms	 ? and	 ? laboratory	 ?spaces,	 ?were	 ?written	 ?into	 ?the	 ?Sustainability	 ?section	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Technical	 ?Guidelines.	 ?UBC	 ?now	 ?sets	 ?an	 ?Energy	 ?Density	 ?Target	 ?for	 ?each	 ?new	 ?building	 ?project,	 ?which	 ?the	 ?design	 ?team	 ?must	 ?meet	 ?or	 ?exceed.	 ?	 ?4.2.5	 ? Simon	 ?Fraser	 ?University	 ?(SFU)	 ?SFU	 ?also	 ?has	 ?a	 ?long	 ?history	 ?of	 ?energy	 ?conservation	 ?and	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?efforts.	 ?It	 ?is	 ?one	 ? of	 ? the	 ? early	 ? signatories	 ? of	 ? the	 ? Talloires	 ? Declaration	 ? in	 ? 1990.	 ? SFU	 ? Burnaby	 ?campus'	 ?$3-??million	 ?lighting	 ?retrofit	 ?programme	 ?was	 ?carried	 ?out	 ?between	 ?2003	 ?and	 ?2005,	 ?saving	 ?6	 ?gigawatt-??hours	 ?(GWh)	 ?of	 ?energy	 ?per	 ?year.	 ?Every	 ?year,	 ?energy	 ?retrofit	 ?projects	 ? that	 ? have	 ? passed	 ? business	 ? case	 ? analysis	 ? are	 ? implemented	 ? by	 ? Facilities	 ?Operations.	 ? SFU	 ? claims	 ? that	 ? in	 ? the	 ? past	 ? two	 ? decades,	 ? its	 ? energy	 ? conservation	 ?strategies	 ?and	 ?PowerSmart	 ?initiatives	 ?have	 ?cumulatively	 ?resulted	 ?in	 ?more	 ?than	 ?$25	 ?million	 ?in	 ?cost	 ?avoidance	 ?(Simon	 ?Fraser	 ?University	 ?2009).	 ?	 ?	 ?SFU	 ? renewed	 ? its	 ? commitment	 ? to	 ? taking	 ? action	 ? on	 ? the	 ? environment	 ? by	 ? signing	 ? the	 ??University	 ?and	 ?College	 ?Presidents'	 ?Climate	 ?Change	 ?Statement	 ?of	 ?Action	 ?for	 ?Canada?	 ?in	 ? 2008.	 ? The	 ? Sustainability	 ? Advisory	 ? Committee	 ? was	 ? formed,	 ? comprising	 ? faculty,	 ?senior	 ? administration	 ? and	 ? student	 ? representatives.	 ? A	 ? part-??time	 ? Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ? Coordinator	 ? was	 ? hired	 ? in	 ? August	 ? 2007	 ? to	 ? develop	 ? and	 ? support	 ?targeted	 ?sustainability-??related	 ?activities	 ?and	 ?programmes	 ?(Simon	 ?Fraser	 ?University	 ?2008).	 ? In	 ? 2010,	 ? senior	 ? administration	 ? through	 ? the	 ? Vice	 ? President	 ? Finance	 ? and	 ?Administration	 ?lent	 ?support	 ?to	 ?energy	 ?conservation	 ?efforts	 ?through	 ?the	 ?signing	 ?of	 ?a	 ?public	 ?Energy	 ?Commitment,	 ? setting	 ? formal	 ?goals	 ? to	 ?continue	 ?on	 ?a	 ?2%	 ?reduction	 ? in	 ?energy	 ? consumption	 ? year	 ? over	 ? year	 ? and	 ? to	 ? support	 ? the	 ? provincial	 ? targets	 ? set	 ? for	 ?reducing	 ? province-??wide	 ? emissions	 ? (Simon	 ? Fraser	 ? University	 ? 2011;	 ? Simon	 ? Fraser	 ?University	 ?2013a).	 ?	 ?	 ? 69	 ?SFU	 ? completed	 ?an	 ? inventory	 ?of	 ? its	 ?2007	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? for	 ? the	 ? first	 ? time,	 ? to	 ? set	 ? a	 ?baseline	 ? for	 ? GHG	 ? management	 ? and	 ? to	 ? identify	 ? reduction	 ? opportunities.	 ? In	 ? 2009,	 ?Facilities	 ? Services	 ? created	 ? a	 ? position	 ? of	 ? full-??time	 ? Sustainability	 ? Coordinator	 ? to	 ?support	 ?the	 ?implementation	 ?of	 ?strategic	 ?plan	 ?objectives	 ?and	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?and	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?expand	 ?the	 ?behaviour	 ?change	 ?programmes	 ?across	 ?SFU's	 ?three	 ?campuses.	 ?In	 ?2012,	 ?SFU	 ? funded	 ? a	 ? new	 ? Sustainability	 ? Office	 ? and	 ? established	 ? a	 ? Senior	 ? Sustainability	 ?Council,	 ? composed	 ?of	 ?a	 ?senior	 ?representative	 ? from	 ?each	 ?vice-??presidential	 ?portfolio	 ?(Simon	 ?Fraser	 ?University	 ?2013b).	 ?	 ?	 ?SFU	 ? continued	 ? to	 ? implement	 ? a	 ? number	 ? of	 ? lighting	 ? and	 ? energy	 ? retrofits	 ? between	 ?2008	 ?and	 ?2012.	 ?Work	 ?on	 ? the	 ?$50-??million	 ? Shrum	 ?Chemistry	 ?major	 ? renewal	 ? capital	 ?project,	 ?which	 ?began	 ? in	 ?2009,	 ?was	 ? completed	 ? in	 ?2011.	 ?This	 ?major	 ? renewal	 ? capital	 ?project	 ? incorporated	 ? high	 ? performance	 ? energy	 ? management	 ? technologies	 ? such	 ? as	 ?low	 ? flow	 ? fume	 ? hoods	 ? and	 ? Direct	 ? Digital	 ? Controls	 ? (DDC)	 ? for	 ? air	 ? conditioning	 ? and	 ?lighting	 ?systems.	 ?Through	 ?participation	 ?in	 ?BC	 ?Hydro's	 ?Continuous	 ?Optimization	 ?pilot	 ?programme,	 ? emissions	 ? for	 ? two	 ? buildings	 ? were	 ? each	 ? reduced	 ? by	 ? over	 ? 20%.	 ? Since	 ?then,	 ?SFU	 ?has	 ?put	 ?several	 ?more	 ?buildings	 ?through	 ?the	 ?COP.	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ? 2010,	 ? a	 ? partnership	 ? agreement	 ? was	 ? signed	 ? by	 ? the	 ? University	 ? with	 ? SFU	 ?Community	 ?Trust	 ?and	 ?Corix	 ?Energy	 ?to	 ?jointly	 ?fund,	 ?develop	 ?and	 ?implement	 ?a	 ?district	 ?energy	 ? system	 ? that	 ? would	 ? serve	 ? both	 ? SFU	 ? and	 ? the	 ? residential	 ? developments	 ? on	 ?Burnaby	 ? Mountain.	 ? In	 ? April	 ? 2011,	 ? Premier	 ? Christy	 ? Clark	 ? announced	 ? provincial	 ?funding	 ? (through	 ? PSECA)	 ? of	 ? $4.7	 ?million	 ? for	 ? this	 ? proposed	 ? project	 ? (Simon	 ? Fraser	 ?University	 ?2012b).	 ?Two	 ?smaller	 ?solar	 ?demonstration	 ?projects	 ?were	 ?installed	 ?at	 ?the	 ?SFU	 ? Burnaby	 ? campus:	 ? a	 ? solar	 ? thermal	 ? (hot	 ? water)	 ? project	 ? and	 ? a	 ? solar	 ? electric	 ?(photovoltaic	 ? array)	 ? were	 ? installed	 ? at	 ? the	 ? Facilities	 ? Services	 ? building.	 ? The	 ? energy	 ?data	 ? was	 ? collected	 ? to	 ? determine	 ? the	 ? potential	 ? for	 ? solar	 ? as	 ? a	 ? renewable	 ? source	 ? of	 ?energy	 ?at	 ?the	 ?Burnaby	 ?campus.	 ?	 ?	 ? 70	 ?4.2.6	 ? Douglas	 ?College	 ?(DO)	 ?Douglas	 ? College	 ? did	 ? not	 ? seem	 ? to	 ? have	 ? undertaken	 ? special	 ? efforts	 ? in	 ? energy	 ?conservation,	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?or	 ?GHG	 ?reduction	 ? in	 ? its	 ?campuses	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate.	 ?No	 ? such	 ?major	 ? efforts	 ? before	 ? 2008	 ? are	 ? indicated	 ? in	 ? its	 ?website	 ? or	 ? other	 ?publications,	 ? despite	 ? the	 ? College	 ? offering	 ? a	 ? short-??term	 ? continuing	 ? education	 ?programme	 ?in	 ?Building	 ?Energy	 ?and	 ?Resource	 ?Management.	 ?	 ?	 ?Beginning	 ? in	 ? 2008,	 ? DO	 ? created	 ? an	 ? Environmental	 ? Sustainability	 ? Task	 ? Force	 ? and	 ?commenced	 ? replacing	 ? incandescent	 ? light	 ? bulbs	 ? with	 ? compact	 ? fluorescent	 ? lamps	 ?(CFLs)	 ?and	 ?light	 ?emitting	 ?diodes	 ?(LEDs).	 ?DO	 ?also	 ?undertook	 ?installation	 ?of	 ?variable	 ?speed	 ? drives,	 ? additional	 ? insulation	 ? and	 ? upgrade	 ? of	 ? boiler	 ? burner	 ? controls	 ? and	 ?upgrades	 ?to	 ?the	 ?HVAC	 ?system,	 ?to	 ?the	 ?extent	 ?allowable	 ?within	 ?its	 ?operational	 ?budget.	 ?The	 ?reduction	 ?in	 ?its	 ?Annual	 ?Capital	 ?Allowance	 ?has	 ?apparently	 ?limited	 ?DO?s	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?pursue	 ? substantive	 ? capital	 ? initiatives	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? its	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? (Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ?2013;	 ?Douglas	 ?College	 ?2013).	 ?	 ?	 ?From	 ?2009	 ?to	 ?2012,	 ?DO	 ?continued	 ?to	 ?do	 ? lighting	 ?and	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?retrofits.	 ? In	 ?2010,	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?a	 ?re-??roofing	 ?project,	 ?DO	 ?installed	 ?a	 ?green	 ?roof	 ?system	 ?on	 ?the	 ?third	 ?and	 ? fourth	 ? floor	 ? decks	 ? of	 ? its	 ? New	 ? Westminster	 ? campus.	 ? DO	 ? also	 ? worked	 ? with	 ?Siemens	 ?Building	 ? Technologies	 ? to	 ? develop	 ? an	 ? energy	 ? use	 ? baseline	 ?with	 ? data	 ? from	 ?2009	 ?to	 ?2011.	 ?A	 ?draft	 ?baseline	 ?was	 ?compiled	 ?in	 ?2012.	 ?DO?s	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?inventory	 ?was	 ?calculated	 ?using	 ?SMARTTool	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?4.2.7	 ? Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ?(VCC)	 ?Like	 ? DO,	 ? VCC	 ? did	 ? not	 ? seem	 ? to	 ? have	 ? undertaken	 ? special	 ? efforts	 ? in	 ? energy	 ?conservation,	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?or	 ?GHG	 ?reduction	 ? in	 ? its	 ?campuses	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate.	 ? There	 ? are	 ? no	 ? reports	 ? of	 ?major	 ? efforts	 ?made	 ? before	 ? 2008,	 ? except	 ? for	 ? an	 ?energy	 ?audit	 ?in	 ?2007	 ?(Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ?2013).	 ?	 ?	 ? 71	 ?In	 ?2008,	 ?VCC	 ?put	 ? in	 ?place	 ?an	 ?executive	 ?advisory	 ?group	 ?tasked	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?advice	 ?to	 ?the	 ? College	 ? administration	 ? on	 ? issues	 ? and	 ? initiatives	 ? related	 ? to	 ? conservation	 ? and	 ?sustainability.	 ? Its	 ?membership	 ? included	 ? a	 ? cross	 ? section	 ? of	 ? stakeholders,	 ? including	 ?students,	 ?faculty	 ?staff,	 ?management	 ?and	 ?volunteers	 ?(Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ?2009).	 ?Feasibility	 ?studies,	 ?budget	 ?approval	 ?and	 ?project	 ?tenders	 ?for	 ?a	 ?lighting	 ?retrofit	 ?project	 ? for	 ? the	 ? Broadway	 ? Campus	 ?were	 ? initiated	 ? in	 ? 2008,	 ? with	 ? the	 ? actual	 ? project	 ?commencing	 ? and	 ? completing	 ? in	 ? 2009.	 ? Feasibility	 ? studies,	 ? budget	 ? approval	 ? and	 ?project	 ? tenders	 ? were	 ? initiated	 ? in	 ? 2008	 ? for	 ? the	 ? installation	 ? of	 ? energy	 ? efficient	 ? hot	 ?water	 ?tanks	 ?at	 ?the	 ?Broadway	 ?Campus,	 ?with	 ?the	 ?actual	 ?project	 ?commencing	 ?in	 ?2009.	 ?VCC	 ? also	 ? began	 ? other	 ? energy	 ? efficiency	 ? projects	 ? like	 ? installation	 ? of	 ? DCC	 ? for	 ?HVAC	 ?systems,	 ? replacement	 ? of	 ? standard	 ? motors	 ? with	 ? variable	 ? speed	 ? motors	 ? and	 ?replacement	 ?of	 ?exterior	 ?glazing	 ?with	 ?more	 ?energy	 ?efficient	 ?glazing.	 ?	 ?VCC	 ? continued	 ? with	 ? lighting	 ? and	 ? energy	 ? efficiency	 ? projects	 ? from	 ? 2009	 ? to	 ? 2012.	 ?During	 ?the	 ?first	 ?round	 ?of	 ?PSECA	 ?funding,	 ?VCC	 ?obtained	 ?$320,000	 ?for	 ?the	 ?installation	 ?of	 ?energy-??efficient	 ?hot	 ?water	 ? tanks	 ?at	 ? the	 ?College?s	 ?new	 ?building	 ?at	 ? the	 ?Downtown	 ?Campus	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013b).	 ?	 ?	 ?VCC	 ?created	 ?and	 ?staffed	 ?a	 ?new	 ?position	 ?of	 ?Manager	 ?of	 ?Environment	 ?&	 ?Sustainability	 ?in	 ?November	 ?2011	 ?with	 ?a	 ?mandate	 ?to	 ?guide	 ?the	 ?College	 ?in	 ?integrating	 ?sustainability	 ?values	 ? and	 ? practices	 ? into	 ? VCC?s	 ? strategic	 ? and	 ? operation	 ? planning	 ? processes,	 ? the	 ?management	 ?of	 ?its	 ?resources	 ?and	 ?operations,	 ?facilities	 ?planning	 ?and	 ?design,	 ?research	 ?activities	 ? and	 ? curriculum.	 ? In	 ? 2012,	 ? through	 ? the	 ? Environment	 ? &	 ? Sustainability	 ?Advisory	 ?Group,	 ?VCC	 ?developed	 ?an	 ?Environment	 ?&	 ?Sustainability	 ?Plan	 ?with	 ?a	 ?vision	 ?to	 ? bring	 ? sustainability	 ? principles	 ? into	 ? the	 ? thinking,	 ? actions,	 ? culture	 ? and	 ? everyday	 ?operations	 ?of	 ?VCC.	 ?VCC	 ?also	 ?set	 ?a	 ?goal	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?its	 ?carbon	 ?footprint	 ?by	 ?10%	 ?below	 ?2011	 ? levels	 ? by	 ? 2016	 ? (Vancouver	 ? Community	 ? College	 ? 2013).	 ? In	 ? order	 ? to	 ?meet	 ? this	 ?target,	 ?VCC	 ?will	 ?complete	 ?and	 ?implement	 ?a	 ?Strategic	 ?Energy	 ?Management	 ?Plan	 ?that	 ?will	 ?identify	 ?opportunities	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?energy	 ?use	 ?and	 ?greenhouse	 ?gas	 ?emissions	 ?and	 ?	 ? 72	 ?their	 ?associated	 ?costs.	 ?In	 ?2012,	 ?VCC	 ?completed	 ?an	 ?Energy	 ?Management	 ?Assessment	 ?with	 ? BC	 ? Hydro	 ? in	 ? order	 ? to	 ? assess	 ? the	 ? energy	 ?management	 ? approach	 ? and	 ? identify	 ?priority	 ? areas	 ? for	 ? further	 ? action.	 ? VCC	 ? also	 ? conducted	 ? walk-??through	 ? natural	 ? gas	 ?energy	 ?audits	 ?of	 ?both	 ?campuses	 ?(Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ?2013).	 ?	 ?	 ?4.3	 ? Summary	 ?of	 ?Actions	 ?Taken	 ?A	 ? tabulation	 ? of	 ? the	 ? more	 ? significant	 ? actions	 ? taken	 ? by	 ? the	 ? 4	 ? selected	 ? case	 ? study	 ?organizations,	 ? grouped	 ?under	 ?major	 ? categories	 ? such	 ?as	 ?management	 ? commitment,	 ?change	 ? in	 ? institutional	 ? structure,	 ? lighting	 ? and	 ?energy	 ? efficiency	 ? retrofits,	 ? buildings	 ?and	 ?vehicles	 ?is	 ?given	 ?in	 ?Appendix	 ?B.	 ?	 ?	 ?From	 ?this	 ?tabulation,	 ?the	 ?following	 ?are	 ?observed:	 ?a) Prior	 ? to	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? in	 ? 2008,	 ? institutions	 ? were	 ? at	 ? different	 ? stages	 ? of	 ?pursuing	 ?energy	 ?conservation	 ?and	 ?efficiency	 ?or	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?action,	 ?ranging	 ?from	 ? UBC,	 ? which	 ? has	 ? a	 ? long	 ? history	 ? of	 ? energy	 ? conservation	 ? and	 ? energy	 ?efficiency	 ?efforts	 ?and	 ?established	 ?a	 ?Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office	 ?since	 ?1998,	 ?to	 ?the	 ?smaller	 ?institutions	 ?like	 ?DO	 ?and	 ?VCC	 ?which	 ?have	 ?not	 ?been	 ?very	 ?active.	 ?b) Since	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate,	 ? the	 ? 4	 ? institutions	 ? have	 ? reported	 ? an	 ? increase	 ? in	 ?activities	 ?and	 ?are	 ?planning	 ?to	 ?take	 ?more	 ?actions.	 ?	 ?c) All	 ? 4	 ? institutions	 ? are	 ? measuring	 ? at	 ? least	 ? their	 ? scope	 ? 1	 ? and	 ? scope	 ? 2	 ? GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?with	 ?UBC	 ?going	 ?beyond	 ?CNG	 ? requirements	 ? to	 ? track	 ?other	 ? scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?such	 ?as	 ?commuting,	 ?travel	 ?and	 ?embodied	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?considering	 ?tracking	 ?of	 ?international	 ?business	 ?travel.	 ?d) UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?have	 ?impressive	 ?lists	 ?of	 ?action	 ?taken,	 ?on	 ?the	 ?surface,	 ?but	 ?many	 ?of	 ?these	 ?are	 ?probably	 ?things	 ?they	 ?have	 ?already	 ?been	 ?working	 ?on	 ?before	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ?which	 ?they	 ?are	 ?able	 ?to	 ?accelerate	 ?because	 ?of	 ?the	 ?mandate.	 ?The	 ?expert	 ?interviews	 ?throw	 ?more	 ?light	 ?on	 ?whether	 ?this	 ?is	 ?the	 ?case.	 ?	 ? 73	 ?e) DO	 ?and	 ?VCC	 ?did	 ?not	 ?appear	 ?to	 ?have	 ?undertaken	 ?any	 ?special	 ?efforts	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?mandate,	 ?but	 ?since	 ?the	 ?mandate	 ?they	 ?have	 ?started	 ?lighting	 ?retrofits	 ?and	 ?small	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?projects	 ?using	 ?their	 ?own	 ?funds.	 ?VCC	 ?received	 ?PSECA	 ?funding	 ?for	 ?one	 ?of	 ?their	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?f) UBC	 ? has	 ? embarked	 ? on	 ? major	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? such	 ? as	 ? the	 ? BRDF	 ? and	 ?steam	 ?to	 ?hot	 ?water	 ?conversion	 ?project.	 ?g) Overall,	 ?with	 ?the	 ?exception	 ?of	 ?UBC,	 ?progress	 ?seems	 ?to	 ?have	 ?slowed	 ?or	 ?stalled	 ?since	 ? 2011	 ? when	 ? the	 ? ?low-??hanging	 ? fruits?	 ? for	 ? energy	 ? efficiency	 ? have	 ? been	 ?harvested	 ?and	 ?no	 ?additional	 ?sources	 ?of	 ?external	 ?funding	 ?were	 ?available.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?expert	 ?interviews,	 ?which	 ?are	 ?reported	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?5,	 ?help	 ?to	 ?corroborate	 ?what	 ?is	 ?actually	 ?happening	 ?on	 ?the	 ?ground	 ?in	 ?these	 ?institutions.	 ?	 ?4.4	 ? Emissions	 ?Data	 ?4.4.1	 ? Introduction	 ?Not	 ?many	 ?PSOs	 ?in	 ?BC	 ?had	 ?inventoried	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?on	 ?their	 ?own	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ? mandate.	 ? As	 ? noted	 ? in	 ? Section	 ? 4.3,	 ? PSOs	 ? are	 ? required	 ? to	 ? report	 ? their	 ? GHG	 ?emissions	 ? using	 ? SMARTTool	 ? beginning	 ?with	 ? the	 ? calendar	 ? year	 ? 2010.	 ? This	 ?marked	 ?the	 ?first	 ?time	 ?most	 ?PSOs	 ?in	 ?BC	 ?formally	 ?measured	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?As	 ?such,	 ?with	 ?the	 ?exception	 ?of	 ?PSOs	 ?like	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?that	 ?commissioned	 ?their	 ?own	 ?GHG	 ?inventory	 ?studies	 ? in	 ?2008	 ?or	 ?earlier,	 ?other	 ?PSOs	 ?have	 ?only	 ?3	 ?years?	 ?record	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?Moreover,	 ?only	 ?scope	 ?1	 ?and	 ?scope	 ?2	 ?emissions,	 ?plus	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?paper	 ?are	 ?covered	 ?under	 ?CNG	 ?and	 ?calculated	 ?using	 ?SMARTTool.	 ?Emissions	 ?from	 ?business	 ?travel	 ?by	 ?core	 ?government	 ?ministries	 ?and	 ?departments,	 ?but	 ?not	 ?other	 ?PSOs,	 ?are	 ?also	 ?covered	 ?under	 ?CNG.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 74	 ?There	 ? are	 ? limitations	 ? to	 ? the	 ? overall	 ? coverage	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate,	 ? as	 ? noted	 ? in	 ?Section	 ? 2.4	 ? on	 ? boundaries	 ? and	 ? in	 ? previous	 ? research	 ? (Lau	 ? and	 ? Dowlatabadi	 ?2011a)(Lau	 ? and	 ? Dowlatabadi	 ? 2011b).	 ? In	 ? addition,	 ? SMARTTool	 ? calculations	 ? are	 ?based	 ?on	 ?emission	 ?factors	 ?that	 ?are	 ?reviewed	 ?annually	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012g),	 ?but	 ?which	 ?may	 ?still	 ?underestimate	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?sources	 ?such	 ?as	 ?imported	 ?electricity	 ?(Dowlatabadi	 ?2011).	 ?Notwithstanding	 ?these,	 ?the	 ?available	 ?GHG	 ?data	 ?from	 ?PSOs	 ? is	 ? the	 ? most	 ? comprehensive	 ? to-??date	 ? and	 ? conforms	 ? to	 ? the	 ? minimum	 ?recommendation	 ?by	 ? the	 ?GHG	 ?Protocol	 ? (WRI	 ?and	 ?WBCSD	 ?2004)	 ? to	 ? include	 ?scope	 ?1	 ?and	 ?scope	 ?2	 ?emissions.	 ?So,	 ?while	 ?3	 ?years	 ?is	 ?probably	 ?too	 ?short	 ?a	 ?duration	 ?for	 ?us	 ?to	 ?discern	 ?a	 ?clear	 ?trend	 ?for	 ?PSO?s	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?they	 ?nonetheless	 ?offer	 ?a	 ?good	 ?source	 ?of	 ?data	 ?from	 ?which	 ?we	 ?can	 ?attempt	 ?to	 ?make	 ?some	 ?observations	 ?regarding	 ?the	 ?actual	 ?performance	 ?of	 ?PSOs	 ?under	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ?to	 ?supplement	 ?the	 ?picture	 ?on	 ?actions	 ?taken	 ?provided	 ?by	 ?the	 ?CNARs.	 ?	 ?4.4.2	 ? Public	 ?Sector	 ?Total	 ?Emissions	 ?and	 ?Offsets	 ?During	 ?the	 ?first	 ?three	 ?years	 ?of	 ?reporting,	 ?total	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?emissions	 ?covered	 ?under	 ?CNG	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?7.6%	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2011,	 ?then	 ?dropped	 ?3.3%	 ?in	 ?2012,	 ?to	 ?end	 ?up	 ?4.1%	 ?above	 ?the	 ?baseline	 ?2010	 ?level.	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ? their	 ? annual	 ? summary	 ? report	 ? for	 ? 2012,	 ? CAS	 ? also	 ? presented	 ? the	 ? figures	 ? on	 ? a	 ??climate-??normalized?	 ?basis,	 ?where	 ?total	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?decreased	 ?marginally	 ?by	 ?1.3%	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012	 ?(Please	 ?see	 ?Table	 ?4.1	 ?on	 ?the	 ?next	 ?page).	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 75	 ?Table	 ?4.1:	 ?BC	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?Year	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Total	 ?Emissions	 ? 812,065	 ? 873,938	 ? 845,235	 ?Change	 ?over	 ?2010	 ? 	 ? +	 ?7.6%	 ? +	 ?4.1%	 ?Normalized	 ?Total	 ?Emissions	 ? 860,170	 ? 849,679	 ? 848,707	 ?Change	 ?over	 ?2010	 ? 	 ? -??	 ?1.2%	 ? -??	 ?1.3%	 ?Source:	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013c).	 ?Figures	 ?for	 ?2010	 ?and	 ?2011	 ?are	 ?updated	 ?as	 ?at	 ?May	 ?2013	 ?and	 ?reflect	 ?amendments	 ?not	 ?originally	 ?reported	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Climate	 ?Action	 ?Secretariat?s	 ?Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government	 ?summaries	 ?of	 ?previous	 ?reporting	 ?years.	 ?CAS	 ? explains	 ? that	 ? in	 ? order	 ? to	 ? control	 ? for	 ? variations	 ? in	 ? the	 ? climate,	 ? the	 ? ?climate-??normalized?	 ? figures	 ?were	 ? derived	 ? by	 ? taking	 ? the	 ? average	 ? temperature	 ? profile	 ? for	 ? a	 ?30-??year	 ? period	 ? and	 ? calculating	 ? the	 ? number	 ? of	 ? days	 ? that	 ? required	 ? buildings	 ? to	 ? use	 ?energy	 ? to	 ? heat	 ? or	 ? cool	 ? temperatures	 ? above	 ? or	 ? below	 ? 15?C.	 ? This	 ? is	 ? referred	 ? to	 ? as	 ??degree	 ? days?	 ? and	 ? is	 ? commonly	 ? used	 ? as	 ? an	 ? indication	 ? of	 ? space	 ? heating	 ? or	 ? cooling	 ?requirements	 ?(Environment	 ?Canada	 ?2013).	 ?The	 ?figures	 ? for	 ?the	 ?years	 ?under	 ?review	 ?are	 ? then	 ? compared	 ? to	 ? the	 ? baseline	 ? year	 ? to	 ? see	 ? if	 ? there	 ? was	 ? more	 ? or	 ? less	 ? energy	 ?required	 ? than	 ? ?normal?	 ? (Ministry	 ? of	 ? Environment,	 ? B.C.	 ? 2013c).	 ? 	 ? Such	 ? ?climate	 ?normalization?	 ? using	 ? ?degree	 ? days?	 ? is	 ? reasonable	 ? since	 ? about	 ? 78%	 ? of	 ? total	 ? public	 ?sector	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?are	 ? from	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?the	 ?resultant	 ? figures	 ?are	 ? taken	 ?as	 ?an	 ?average	 ?for	 ?the	 ?entire	 ?public	 ?sector.	 ?However,	 ? the	 ?normalization	 ?adjustment	 ?might	 ?give	 ? a	 ? different	 ? result	 ? depending	 ? on	 ? how	 ? the	 ? 30-??year	 ? average	 ? degree-??day	 ? was	 ?computed,	 ?which	 ?weather	 ?stations	 ?within	 ?the	 ?whole	 ?of	 ?BC	 ?the	 ?temperature	 ?readings	 ?were	 ?taken	 ?from,	 ?or	 ?if	 ?a	 ?different	 ?threshold	 ?temperature	 ?was	 ?used	 ?instead	 ?of	 ?15?C.	 ?Environment	 ? Canada	 ? cites	 ? a	 ? threshold	 ? temperature	 ? of	 ? 18?C	 ? (Environment	 ? Canada	 ?2013),	 ? which	 ? would	 ? have	 ? called	 ? for	 ? a	 ? smaller	 ? adjustment	 ? to	 ? the	 ? 2011	 ? and	 ? 2012	 ?figures.	 ? There	 ? would	 ? also	 ? be	 ? a	 ? different	 ? ?climate	 ? normalized?	 ? figure	 ? for	 ? different	 ?	 ? 76	 ?PSOs	 ? depending	 ? on	 ? the	 ? geographical	 ? locations	 ? of	 ? their	 ? facilities	 ? and	 ? individual	 ?emissions	 ?profile,	 ? so	 ?no	 ? firm	 ?conclusions	 ? can	 ?be	 ?drawn	 ? for	 ? individual	 ?PSOs	 ?unless	 ?such	 ?detailed	 ?information	 ?were	 ?incorporated	 ?in	 ?the	 ?calculation.	 ?	 ?	 ?As	 ?for	 ?total	 ?offsets	 ?purchased	 ?for	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector,	 ?they	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?7.9%	 ? from	 ?2010	 ? to	 ? 2011,	 ? then	 ? dropped	 ? 4.2%	 ? in	 ? 2012,	 ? to	 ? end	 ? up	 ? 3.4%	 ? above	 ? the	 ?baseline	 ?2010	 ?level.	 ?On	 ?a	 ? ?climate-??normalized?	 ?basis,	 ? total	 ?offsets	 ?purchased	 ?by	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?decreased	 ?marginally	 ?by	 ?2.6%	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012	 ?(Please	 ?see	 ?Table	 ?4.2	 ?below).	 ?	 ?	 ?Table	 ?4.2:	 ?BC	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?GHG	 ?Offsets	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?Year	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Total	 ?Offsets	 ? 727,647	 ? 785,379	 ? 752,303	 ?Change	 ?over	 ?2010	 ? 	 ? +	 ?7.9%	 ? +	 ?3.4%	 ?Normalized	 ?Total	 ?Offsets	 ? 775,651	 ? 761,181	 ? 755,665	 ?Change	 ?over	 ?2010	 ? 	 ? -??	 ?1.9%	 ? -??	 ?2.6%	 ?Source:	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013c).	 ?Figures	 ?for	 ?2010	 ?and	 ?2011	 ?updated	 ?as	 ?at	 ?May	 ?2013	 ?and	 ?reflect	 ?amendments	 ?not	 ?originally	 ?reported	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Climate	 ?Action	 ?Secretariat?s	 ?Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government	 ?summaries	 ?of	 ?previous	 ?reporting	 ?years.	 ?In	 ?summary,	 ?within	 ?the	 ?short	 ?period	 ?of	 ?time	 ?for	 ?which	 ?emissions	 ?data	 ?is	 ?available	 ?for	 ?the	 ? public	 ? sector,	 ? and	 ? bearing	 ? in	 ? mind	 ? the	 ? limitations	 ? of	 ? ?climate	 ? normalization?	 ?discussed	 ?above,	 ?it	 ?may	 ?perhaps	 ?be	 ?surmised	 ?that	 ?there	 ?is	 ?no	 ?significant	 ?reduction	 ?in	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? for	 ? the	 ?public	 ? sector	 ?as	 ?a	 ?whole	 ?during	 ? the	 ?3	 ?years	 ? since	 ?CNG	 ?was	 ?mandated	 ?in	 ?BC.	 ?	 ? 77	 ?4.4.3	 ? Sectoral	 ?Comparison	 ?of	 ?Emissions	 ?and	 ?Offsets	 ?Among	 ?the	 ?main	 ?sectors	 ?of	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector,	 ?emissions	 ?performance	 ?varied	 ?slightly.	 ?As	 ? seen	 ? in	 ? Figure	 ? 4.1	 ? and	 ? Table	 ? 4.3,	 ? total	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ? the	 ? public	 ? sector	 ?increased	 ? by	 ? 3.8%	 ? from	 ?2010	 ? to	 ? 2012.	 ? Total	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ?Crown	 ?Corporations	 ?increased	 ?the	 ?least	 ?at	 ?1.8%,	 ?while	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?Health	 ?Authorities	 ?increased	 ?the	 ?most	 ?at	 ?5.7%.	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?from	 ?Post-??Secondary	 ?Institutions	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?4.9%,	 ?being	 ?the	 ?median	 ?among	 ?the	 ?sectors,	 ?but	 ?above	 ?the	 ?average	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Public	 ?Sector.	 ?	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? from	 ?the	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?and	 ?all	 ? sectors	 ?except	 ? for	 ?Core	 ?Government	 ?were	 ?lower	 ?in	 ?2012	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?2011.	 ?However,	 ?Core	 ?Government	 ?total	 ?emissions	 ?increased	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?through	 ?2011	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.1:	 ?Total	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?by	 ?Sector	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2011;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012d;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013)	 ?0	 ?100,000	 ?200,000	 ?300,000	 ?400,000	 ?500,000	 ?600,000	 ?700,000	 ?800,000	 ?900,000	 ? Core	 ?Government	 ? Crown	 ?Corporations	 ? School	 ?Districts	 ? Health	 ?Authorities	 ? Post	 ?Secondary	 ?	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?Total	 ?Emissions	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ?2010	 ?2011	 ?2012	 ?	 ? 78	 ?Table	 ?4.3:	 ?Total	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?by	 ?Sector	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?Sector	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ? 2012-??2010	 ?(%)	 ?Post	 ?Secondary	 ? 	 ?150,959	 ?	 ? 	 ?161,727	 ?	 ? 	 ?158,378	 ?	 ? 4.9	 ?Health	 ?Authorities	 ? 	 ?217,331	 ?	 ? 	 ?231,691	 ?	 ? 	 ?228,548	 ?	 ? 5.2	 ?School	 ?Districts	 ? 	 ?198,387	 ?	 ? 	 ?214,048	 ?	 ? 	 ?202,683	 ?	 ? 2.2	 ?Crown	 ?Corporations	 ? 	 ?152,978	 ?	 ? 	 ?158,361	 ?	 ? 	 ?155,734	 ?	 ? 1.8	 ?Core	 ?Government	 ? 	 ?94,494	 ?	 ? 	 ?98,212	 ?	 ? 	 ?99,868	 ?	 ? 5.7	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ? 	 ?814,149	 ?	 ? 	 ?864,040	 ?	 ? 	 ?845,211	 ?	 ? 3.8	 ?Sources:	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2011;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012d;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013)	 ?In	 ? terms	 ? of	 ? offsets	 ? purchased	 ? among	 ? the	 ? main	 ? sectors	 ? of	 ? the	 ? public	 ? sector,	 ? the	 ?pattern	 ?was	 ?slightly	 ?different	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?total	 ?emissions.	 ?As	 ?seen	 ?in	 ?Figure	 ?4.2	 ?and	 ?Table	 ?4.4,	 ?offsets	 ?purchased	 ?by	 ?the	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?under	 ?CNG	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?3.1%	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?However,	 ?offsets	 ?by	 ?Post-??Secondary	 ?Institutions	 ?held	 ?steady	 ?in	 ?2012	 ?compared	 ? to	 ?2010,	 ?while	 ?offsets	 ?by	 ?Core	 ?Government	 ? increased	 ? the	 ?most	 ?at	 ?5.8%.	 ?	 ?Similar	 ?to	 ?total	 ?emissions,	 ?offsets	 ?by	 ?the	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?and	 ?all	 ?sectors	 ?except	 ?for	 ?Core	 ?Government	 ?were	 ?lower	 ?in	 ?2012	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?2011.	 ?Again,	 ?Core	 ?Government	 ?offsets	 ?purchased	 ?increased	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?through	 ?2011	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?One	 ? of	 ? the	 ? reasons	 ? for	 ? the	 ? difference	 ? between	 ? total	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? and	 ? offsets	 ? of	 ?Post-??Secondary	 ?Institutions	 ?could	 ?be	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?increased	 ?use	 ?of	 ?biomass	 ?to	 ?replace	 ?natural	 ? gas	 ? in	 ? a	 ? number	 ? of	 ? institutions,	 ? notably	 ?UBC	 ? and	 ?UNBC.	 ? Under	 ? the	 ? CNGR,	 ?with	 ?subsequent	 ?clarifications	 ?through	 ?a	 ?series	 ?of	 ?policy	 ?decisions,	 ?emissions	 ? from	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?biomass	 ?and	 ?biofuel	 ?sources	 ?have	 ?to	 ?be	 ?reported	 ?but	 ?are	 ?not	 ?required	 ?to	 ?be	 ?offset	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012g).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 79	 ?Figure	 ?4.2:	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?by	 ?Sector	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2011;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012d;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013)	 ?Table	 ?4.4:	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?by	 ?Sector	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?Sector	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ? 2012-??2010	 ?(%)	 ?Post	 ?Secondary	 ? 	 ?150,779	 ?	 ? 	 ?159,207	 ?	 ? 	 ?150,746	 ?	 ? (0.0)	 ?Health	 ?Authorities	 ? 	 ?217,135	 ?	 ? 	 ?231,472	 ?	 ? 	 ?228,349	 ?	 ? 5.2	 ?School	 ?Districts	 ? 	 ?176,672	 ?	 ? 	 ?191,335	 ?	 ? 	 ?180,535	 ?	 ? 2.2	 ?Crown	 ?Corporations	 ? 	 ?92,245	 ?	 ? 	 ?96,817	 ?	 ? 	 ?94,307	 ?	 ? 2.2	 ?Core	 ?Government	 ? 	 ?92,951	 ?	 ? 	 ?96,678	 ?	 ? 	 ?98,361	 ?	 ? 5.8	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ? 	 ?729,782	 ?	 ? 	 ?775,509	 ?	 ? 	 ?752,298	 ?	 ? 3.1	 ?Sources:	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2011;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012d;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013)	 ?0	 ?50,000	 ?100,000	 ?150,000	 ?200,000	 ?250,000	 ? Core	 ?Government	 ? Crown	 ?Corporations	 ? School	 ?Districts	 ?  Health	 ?Authorities	 ? Post	 ?Secondary	 ?Total	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ?2010	 ?2011	 ?2012	 ?	 ? 80	 ?4.4.4	 ? Post-??Secondary	 ?Institutions	 ?Among	 ? the	 ? group	 ? of	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions,	 ? emissions	 ? performance,	 ? as	 ?measured	 ? by	 ? offsets	 ? purchased	 ? in	 ? 2012	 ? compared	 ? to	 ? 2010,	 ? is	 ? varied.	 ?While	 ? some	 ?recorded	 ?increases	 ?of	 ?close	 ?to	 ?20%,	 ?a	 ?few	 ?had	 ?only	 ?single-??digit	 ?increases	 ?and	 ?others	 ?even	 ?a	 ?decrease	 ?of	 ?10	 ?to	 ?20%	 ?in	 ? their	 ?emissions	 ?(Please	 ?see	 ?Table	 ?4.5	 ?on	 ?the	 ?next	 ?page).	 ?The	 ?4	 ? case	 ? study	 ?organizations	 ?are	 ?highlighted	 ? in	 ?green.	 ?Overall,	 ?BC?s	 ?post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? as	 ? a	 ? group	 ?performed	 ? slightly	 ?better	 ? than	 ? the	 ?public	 ? sector	 ?average.	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 81	 ?Table	 ?4.5:	 ?Quantity	 ?of	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?by	 ?BC	 ?Post-??Secondary	 ?Institutions	 ?Institution	 ? 2012	 ?Total	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?(tonnes)	 ?2010	 ?Total	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?(tonnes)	 ?	 ?Difference	 ?Total	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?	 ?%	 ?Difference	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?Institute	 ?of	 ?Technology	 ? 	 ?9,673	 ?	 ? 	 ?9,473	 ?	 ? 	 ?200	 ?	 ? 2.1	 ?	 ?Camosun	 ?College	 ? 	 ?1,843	 ?	 ? 	 ?2,029	 ?	 ? 	 ?(186)	 ? (9.2)	 ?Capilano	 ?University	 ? 	 ?2,189	 ?	 ? 	 ?2,163	 ?	 ? 	 ?26	 ?	 ? 1.2	 ?	 ?College	 ?of	 ?New	 ?Caledonia	 ? 	 ?2,700	 ?	 ? 	 ?2,256	 ?	 ? 	 ?444	 ?	 ? 19.7	 ?	 ?College	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Rockies	 ? 	 ?829	 ?	 ? 	 ?832	 ?	 ? 	 ?(3)	 ? (0.4)	 ?Douglas	 ?College	 ? 	 ?2,039	 ?	 ? 	 ?1,960	 ?	 ? 	 ?79	 ?	 ? 4.0	 ?	 ?Emily	 ?Carr	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Art	 ?&	 ?Design	 ? 	 ?910	 ?	 ? 	 ?859	 ?	 ? 	 ?51	 ?	 ? 6.0	 ?	 ?Justice	 ?Institute	 ?of	 ?BC	 ? 	 ?712	 ?	 ? 	 ?696	 ?	 ? 	 ?16	 ?	 ? 2.3	 ?	 ?Kwantlen	 ?Polytechnic	 ?University	 ? 	 ?2,665	 ?	 ? 	 ?2,479	 ?	 ? 	 ?186	 ?	 ? 7.5	 ?	 ?Langara	 ?College	 ? 	 ?1,567	 ?	 ? 	 ?1,762	 ?	 ? 	 ?(195)	 ? (11.0)	 ?Nicola	 ?Valley	 ?Institute	 ?of	 ?Technology	 ? 	 ?496	 ?	 ? 	 ?420	 ?	 ? 	 ?76	 ?	 ? 18.1	 ?	 ?North	 ?Island	 ?College	 ? 	 ?1,145	 ?	 ? 	 ?1,132	 ?	 ? 	 ?13	 ?	 ? 1.2	 ?	 ?Northern	 ?Lights	 ?College	 ? 	 ?2,003	 ?	 ? 	 ?1,786	 ?	 ? 	 ?217	 ?	 ? 12.2	 ?	 ?Northwest	 ?Community	 ?College	 ? 	 ?1,702	 ?	 ? 	 ?1,421	 ?	 ? 	 ?281	 ?	 ? 19.8	 ?	 ?Okanagan	 ?College	 ? 	 ?1,484	 ?	 ? 	 ?1,902	 ?	 ? 	 ?(418)	 ? (22.0)	 ?Royal	 ?Roads	 ?University	 ? 	 ?1,270	 ?	 ? 	 ?1,460	 ?	 ? 	 ?(190)	 ? (13.0)	 ?Selkirk	 ?College	 ? 	 ?1,423	 ?	 ? 	 ?1,575	 ?	 ? 	 ?(152)	 ? (9.7)	 ?Simon	 ?Fraser	 ?University	 ? 	 ?17,818	 ?	 ? 	 ?17,695	 ?	 ? 	 ?123	 ?	 ? 0.7	 ?	 ?Thompson	 ?Rivers	 ?University	 ? 	 ?4,104	 ?	 ? 	 ?4,217	 ?	 ? 	 ?(113)	 ? (2.7)	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia-??Vancouver	 ? 	 ?64,799	 ?	 ? 	 ?61,649	 ?	 ? 	 ?3,150	 ?	 ? 5.1	 ?	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?-??	 ?Okanagan	 ? 	 ?3,316	 ?	 ? 	 ?2,856	 ?	 ? 	 ?460	 ?	 ? 16.1	 ?	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Northern	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ? 	 ?2,167	 ?	 ? 	 ?5,688	 ?	 ? 	 ?(3,521)	 ? (61.9)	 ?University	 ?of	 ?The	 ?Fraser	 ?Valley	 ? 	 ?3,269	 ?	 ? 	 ?3,061	 ?	 ? 	 ?208	 ?	 ? 6.8	 ?	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Victoria	 ? 	 ?14,156	 ?	 ? 	 ?15,506	 ?	 ? 	 ?(1,350)	 ? (8.7)	 ?Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ? 	 ?3,000	 ?	 ? 	 ?2,993	 ?	 ? 	 ?7	 ?	 ? 0.2	 ?	 ?Vancouver	 ?Island	 ?University	 ? 	 ?3,346	 ?	 ? 	 ?3,070	 ?	 ? 	 ?276	 ?	 ? 9.0	 ?	 ?Post	 ?Secondary	 ?Total	 ? 	 ?150,625	 ?	 ? 	 ?150,940	 ?	 ? 	 ?(315)	 ? (0.2)	 ?Public	 ?Sector	 ?Total	 ? 	 ?752,303	 ?	 ? 	 ?727,647	 ?	 ? 	 ?24,656	 ?	 ? 3.4	 ?	 ?	 ? 82	 ?Sources:	 ?Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Action	 ?Reports	 ?of	 ?all	 ?post-??secondary	 ?institutions	 ?(2010	 ?and	 ?2012),	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2011),	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013),	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013c)	 ??	 ?Figures	 ?incorporate	 ?adjustments	 ?for	 ?errors	 ?due	 ?to	 ?under-??	 ?or	 ?over-??reporting	 ?of	 ?emissions	 ?by	 ?individual	 ?institutions	 ?in	 ?2010.	 ?	 ?There	 ?could	 ?be	 ?a	 ?number	 ?of	 ?explanations	 ? for	 ? the	 ?differences	 ? in	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ? these	 ?institutions.	 ?First,	 ?the	 ?time	 ?period	 ?is	 ?extremely	 ?short,	 ?so	 ?we	 ?cannot	 ?expect	 ?to	 ?see	 ?any	 ?trend	 ?or	 ?draw	 ?meaningful	 ?conclusions	 ?yet.	 ?Second,	 ?variability	 ?of	 ?weather	 ?conditions	 ?in	 ?different	 ?regions	 ?of	 ?BC	 ?during	 ?these	 ?3	 ?years	 ?could	 ?account	 ?for	 ?some	 ?differences.	 ?Third,	 ? many	 ? of	 ? the	 ? institutions	 ? are	 ? still	 ? expanding	 ? their	 ? enrolment	 ? and	 ? bringing	 ?more	 ? buildings	 ? and	 ? facilities	 ? on	 ? stream,	 ? leading	 ? to	 ? an	 ? increase	 ? in	 ? energy	 ? use	 ? on	 ?campus	 ?and	 ?hence	 ?emissions.	 ?Fourth,	 ?some	 ?institutions	 ?have	 ?been	 ?pursuing	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?retrofits	 ?or	 ?new	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?lower	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?implementation	 ?of	 ?CNG.	 ?Their	 ?emissions	 ?pattern	 ?could	 ?be	 ?the	 ?result	 ?of	 ?these	 ?past	 ?efforts.	 ?Institutions	 ?that	 ?have	 ?embarked	 ?on	 ?emission	 ?reduction	 ?projects	 ?since	 ?2008	 ?may	 ? also	 ? start	 ? to	 ? see	 ? their	 ? projects	 ? bear	 ? fruit	 ? in	 ? terms	 ? of	 ? lower	 ? emissions,	 ? while	 ?others	 ?should	 ?see	 ?such	 ?reductions	 ?over	 ?the	 ?next	 ?few	 ?years.	 ?	 ?4.4.5	 ? Case	 ?Study	 ?PSOs	 ?Figure	 ?4.3	 ?on	 ? the	 ?next	 ?page	 ?shows	 ?the	 ?quantity	 ?of	 ?offsets	 ?purchased	 ?by	 ? the	 ?4	 ?case	 ?study	 ?PSOs	 ?during	 ? the	 ? first	 ? 3	 ? years	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate.	 ? All	 ? 4	 ? PSOs	 ? exhibited	 ? the	 ?same	 ?pattern,	 ?although	 ?the	 ?degree	 ?of	 ?variation	 ?was	 ?greater	 ?in	 ?UBC	 ?than	 ?the	 ?other	 ?3.	 ?Offsets	 ?purchased	 ?were	 ?highest	 ? in	 ?2011,	 ? and	 ?2012	 ?offsets	 ?were	 ?marginally	 ?higher	 ?than	 ?that	 ?in	 ?2010	 ?in	 ?all	 ?4	 ?PSOs.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 83	 ?Figure	 ?4.3:	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?by	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?PSOs	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?CNAR	 ?of	 ?DO,	 ?SFU,	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?VCC	 ?(2010	 ??	 ?2012)	 ?Figure	 ?4.4	 ?on	 ?the	 ?next	 ?page	 ?shows	 ?the	 ?GHG	 ? intensity	 ? for	 ? the	 ?case	 ?study	 ?PSOs	 ?over	 ?the	 ? 3-??year	 ? period	 ? from	 ?2010	 ? to	 ? 2012.	 ? The	 ? intensity	 ? is	 ? represented	 ?by	 ? quantity	 ? of	 ?offsets	 ? purchased	 ? by	 ? the	 ? respective	 ? institutions,	 ? divided	 ? by	 ? the	 ? enrolment	 ? of	 ?students,	 ?which	 ?is	 ?based	 ?on	 ?their	 ?annualized	 ?full-??time	 ?equivalent	 ?(FTE).	 ?	 ?	 ?1,960	 ? 2,294	 ?2,039	 ?17,695	 ? 18,741	 ? 17,818	 ?61,649	 ?67,796	 ?64,799	 ?2,993	 ? 3,080	 ? 3,000	 ?0	 ?10,000	 ?20,000	 ?30,000	 ?40,000	 ?50,000	 ?60,000	 ?70,000	 ?2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ?Year	 ?DO	 ?SFU	 ?UBC	 ?VCC	 ?	 ? 84	 ?From	 ?the	 ?graph,	 ?we	 ?can	 ?see	 ? that	 ?UBC	 ?has	 ? the	 ?highest	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? intensity	 ?per	 ?student,	 ?twice	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?SFU.	 ?DO	 ?has	 ?the	 ?lowest	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?intensity	 ?among	 ?the	 ?4	 ?case	 ?study	 ?PSO,	 ?at	 ? less	 ?than	 ?15%	 ?that	 ?of	 ?UBC.	 ?The	 ?large	 ?disparities	 ?are	 ?likely	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?nature	 ?of	 ?their	 ?operations,	 ?with	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?being	 ?full-??fledged	 ?research	 ?universities	 ?complete	 ?with	 ?student	 ?residences.	 ?UBC	 ?also	 ?has	 ?a	 ?sprawling	 ?campus	 ?at	 ?Point	 ?Grey,	 ?while	 ?SFU?s	 ?Burnaby	 ?Campus	 ? is	 ?more	 ?compact,	 ?with	 ?buildings	 ?situated	 ?much	 ? closer	 ? together.	 ?DO?s	 ?David	 ? Lam	 ?Campus	 ? in	 ?Coquitlam	 ?and	 ?VCC?s	 ?Broadway	 ?Campus	 ? are	 ? relatively	 ? new,	 ? with	 ?major	 ? expansions	 ? completed	 ? in	 ? 2008	 ? and	 ? 2009,	 ?respectively.	 ?	 ?	 ?Over	 ?this	 ?short	 ?period	 ?of	 ?time,	 ?the	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?intensity	 ?for	 ?DO,	 ?SFU	 ?and	 ?VCC	 ?are	 ?on	 ?a	 ?downward	 ?trend,	 ?with	 ?2012	 ?intensity	 ?below	 ?that	 ?of	 ?2010.	 ?UBC?s	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?intensity	 ?was	 ?at	 ?the	 ?same	 ?level	 ?in	 ?2012	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?2010.	 ?	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.4:	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ?by	 ?Case	 ?Study	 ?PSOs	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?0.22	 ? 0.24	 ? 0.20	 ?0.70	 ? 0.71	 ? 0.67	 ?1.51	 ?1.63	 ?1.51	 ?0.38	 ? 0.39	 ? 0.37	 ?0.00	 ?0.20	 ?0.40	 ?0.60	 ?0.80	 ?1.00	 ?1.20	 ?1.40	 ?1.60	 ?1.80	 ?2010	 ?	 ? 2011	 ?	 ? 2012	 ?	 ?Offsets	 ?Purchased	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ?Year	 ?DO	 ?SFU	 ?UBC	 ?VCC	 ?	 ? 85	 ?Sources:	 ?CNAR	 ?of	 ?DO,	 ?SFU,	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?VCC	 ?(2010	 ??	 ?2012),	 ?UBC	 ?Planning	 ?&	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?(http://www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/students/students.htm),	 ?SFU	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Planning	 ?website	 ?(www.sfu.ca/irp),	 ?Douglas	 ?College	 ?Finance	 ?Department	 ?website	 ?(http://www.douglas.bc.ca/employees/finance-??department.html),	 ?Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ?website	 ?(http://www.vcc.ca/about/college-??information/reports-??and-??publications/)	 ?4.5	 ? Energy	 ?Consumption	 ?Data	 ?4.5.1	 ? Introduction	 ?Since	 ?there	 ?are	 ?only	 ?3	 ?years	 ?of	 ?complete	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?data	 ?for	 ?most	 ?PSOs,	 ?it	 ?would	 ?be	 ? useful	 ? to	 ? look	 ? at	 ? energy	 ? consumption	 ? data,	 ? which	 ? is	 ? generally	 ? tracked	 ? and	 ?available	 ? over	 ? a	 ? longer	 ? period	 ? of	 ? time.	 ? Although	 ? it	 ? would	 ? be	 ? ideal	 ? if	 ? energy	 ?consumption	 ? trends	 ? in	 ? all	 ? the	 ? selected	 ?PSOs	 ? could	 ?be	 ? examined,	 ? such	 ?data	 ? is	 ? only	 ?made	 ?available	 ?by	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU.	 ?Similar	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?data	 ?for	 ?DO	 ?and	 ?VCC	 ?is	 ?not	 ?available	 ?in	 ?the	 ?public	 ?domain.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?related	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?data	 ? is	 ?provided	 ?primarily	 ?by	 ?UBC?s	 ?Campus	 ? Sustainability	 ?Office	 ? and	 ? SFU	 ?Facilities	 ? Services.	 ?Additional	 ? data	 ? on	 ?student	 ? enrolment	 ? and	 ? campus	 ? floor	 ? space	 ? are	 ? found	 ? on	 ? the	 ? websites	 ? of	 ? UBC	 ?Planning	 ?&	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Planning.	 ?This	 ?section	 ? will	 ? look	 ? at	 ? energy	 ? consumption	 ? and	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? of	 ? UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU	 ? in	 ?detail.	 ?The	 ?key	 ?data	 ?used	 ?in	 ?this	 ?analysis	 ?are	 ?given	 ?in	 ?Appendix	 ?C	 ?and	 ?Appendix	 ?D.	 ?	 ?4.5.2	 ? The	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?UBC	 ?has	 ?been	 ?tracking	 ?its	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?for	 ?a	 ?long	 ?period	 ?of	 ?time.	 ?The	 ?more	 ?accurate	 ?or	 ?complete	 ?data	 ?appears	 ? to	 ?be	 ? from	 ?2006	 ?onwards,	 ?but	 ?data	 ? for	 ?2000	 ? is	 ?provided	 ? for	 ? reference.	 ? Since	 ? the	 ? bulk	 ? of	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? are	 ? from	 ? combustion	 ? of	 ?natural	 ? gas	 ? and	 ? generation	 ? of	 ? electricity	 ? (offsite),	 ? we	 ? focus	 ? on	 ? these	 ? two	 ? main	 ?	 ? 86	 ?energy	 ?sources.	 ?As	 ?can	 ?be	 ?seen	 ?from	 ?Figure	 ?4.5,	 ?UBC?s	 ?electricity	 ?consumption	 ?has	 ?been	 ?on	 ?a	 ?clear	 ?upward	 ?trend	 ?since	 ?2000,	 ?which	 ?continues	 ?up	 ?to	 ?2012,	 ?despite	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate.	 ?Natural	 ?gas	 ?consumption	 ?fluctuated	 ?from	 ?year	 ?to	 ?year,	 ?with	 ?no	 ?clear	 ?upward	 ?or	 ?downward	 ?trend	 ?from	 ?2006	 ?onwards.	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.5:	 ?UBC?s	 ?Electricity	 ?and	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Consumption	 ?2000	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Source:	 ?UBC	 ?Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office	 ?As	 ? for	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? that	 ? are	 ? covered	 ?under	 ?CNG,	 ? they	 ?have	 ?been	 ?on	 ? a	 ?declining	 ?trend	 ? since	 ?2000,	 ? although	 ? there	 ?have	 ?been	 ? fluctuations	 ? from	 ?2006	 ?onwards	 ? (See	 ?Figure	 ?4.6).	 ?An	 ?important	 ?point	 ?to	 ?note	 ?about	 ?UBC?s	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?2012	 ?is	 ?that	 ?0	 ?200	 ?400	 ?600	 ?800	 ?1,000	 ?1,200	 ?1,400	 ?1,600	 ?1,800	 ?2,000	 ?0	 ?50	 ?100	 ?150	 ?200	 ?250	 ?2000	 ? 2001	 ? 2002	 ? 2003	 ? 2004	 ? 2005	 ? 2006	 ? 2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?('000	 ?GJ)	 ?Electricity	 ?(GWh)	 ?Year	 ?Electricity	 ? Natural	 ?Gas	 ?	 ? 87	 ?total	 ? emissions	 ? were	 ? 68,794	 ? tonnes	 ? CO2e,	 ? which	 ? was	 ? higher	 ? even	 ? than	 ? the	 ? total	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?2011,	 ?at	 ?67,842.	 ?But	 ?because	 ?3,995	 ?tonnes	 ?of	 ?these	 ?were	 ?from	 ?biomass,	 ?UBC	 ?was	 ?only	 ?required	 ?to	 ?purchase	 ?64,799	 ?tonnes	 ?of	 ?offsets	 ?for	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?One	 ? main	 ? category	 ? of	 ? GHG	 ? emissions,	 ? i.e.	 ? fleet	 ? emissions,	 ? showed	 ? a	 ? much	 ? more	 ?significant	 ?downward	 ?trend,	 ?decreasing	 ?by	 ?about	 ?36%	 ?from	 ?2006	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.6:	 ?UBC?s	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?Covered	 ?by	 ??Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government?	 ?and	 ?Fleet	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?2000	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?UBC	 ?Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office	 ?and	 ?Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Action	 ?Reports	 ?2010	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ? 	 ?0	 ?500	 ?1,000	 ?1,500	 ?2,000	 ?2,500	 ?3,000	 ?3,500	 ?4,000	 ?4,500	 ?5,000	 ?0	 ?10,000	 ?20,000	 ?30,000	 ?40,000	 ?50,000	 ?60,000	 ?70,000	 ?2000	 ? 2001	 ? 2002	 ? 2003	 ? 2004	 ? 2005	 ? 2006	 ? 2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Fleet	 ?GHG	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ?GHG	 ?Covered	 ?by	 ?CNG	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ?Year	 ?GHG	 ?covered	 ?by	 ?CNG	 ? Fleet	 ?GHG	 ? Trendline	 ?(GHG	 ?covered	 ?by	 ?CNG)	 ?	 ? 88	 ?Like	 ?many	 ? other	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? in	 ? BC,	 ? UBC	 ? has	 ? been	 ? expanding	 ? over	 ?the	 ? last	 ? 12	 ? years	 ? in	 ? response	 ? to	 ? population	 ? growth	 ? in	 ? BC	 ? and	 ? an	 ? influx	 ? of	 ?international	 ?students.	 ?Similarly,	 ?UBC?s	 ?physical	 ?stock	 ?of	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?facilities	 ?has	 ?had	 ?to	 ?expand	 ?to	 ?serve	 ?the	 ?larger	 ?enrolment.	 ?Figure	 ?4.7	 ?below	 ?shows	 ?the	 ?increases	 ?in	 ?enrolment	 ?and	 ?total	 ?floor	 ?space	 ?over	 ?this	 ?period.	 ?Enrolment	 ?increased	 ?40%	 ?from	 ?2000	 ?to	 ?2012,	 ?while	 ?total	 ?floor	 ?space	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?30%.	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.7:	 ?UBC?s	 ?Total	 ?Floor	 ?Space	 ?and	 ?Enrolment	 ?2000	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?UBC	 ?Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office,	 ?UBC	 ?Planning	 ?&	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?(http://www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/students/students.htm)	 ?	 ? 	 ?0	 ?18,000	 ?36,000	 ?54,000	 ?72,000	 ?90,000	 ?0	 ?300,000	 ?600,000	 ?900,000	 ?1,200,000	 ?1,500,000	 ?2000	 ? 2001	 ? 2002	 ? 2003	 ? 2004	 ? 2005	 ? 2006	 ? 2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Enrolment	 ?(Annual	 ?FTE)	 ?Total	 ?Floor	 ?Space	 ?(Sq	 ?M)	 ?Year	 ?Total	 ?Floor	 ?Space	 ? Enrolment	 ?	 ? 89	 ?The	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?enrolment	 ?and	 ?building	 ?stock	 ?has	 ?been	 ?accompanied	 ?by	 ?an	 ?increase	 ?in	 ? electricity	 ? consumption	 ? intensity.	 ? Figure	 ? 4.8	 ? below	 ? shows	 ? that	 ? electricity	 ?consumption	 ?intensity	 ?per	 ?student	 ?and	 ?per	 ?square	 ?metre	 ?have	 ?both	 ?been	 ?increasing	 ?from	 ?2006	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.8:	 ?UBC?s	 ?Electricity	 ?Consumption	 ?Intensity	 ?2006	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?UBC	 ?Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office,	 ?UBC	 ?Planning	 ?&	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?(http://www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/students/students.htm)	 ?120	 ?130	 ?140	 ?150	 ?160	 ?170	 ?180	 ?3,600	 ?3,800	 ?4,000	 ?4,200	 ?4,400	 ?4,600	 ?4,800	 ?5,000	 ?5,200	 ?2006	 ? 2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Electricity	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M	 ?Electicity	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ?Year	 ?Electricity	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ? Electricity	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M	 ?Trendline	 ?(Electricity	 ?Per	 ?Student)	 ? Trendline	 ?(Electricity	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M)	 ?	 ? 90	 ?Natural	 ? gas	 ? consumption	 ? intensity,	 ? however,	 ? has	 ? been	 ? decreasing	 ? over	 ? the	 ? same	 ?period	 ? (Figure	 ?4.9).	 ?Natural	 ?gas	 ? consumption	 ?per	 ? student	 ?decreased	 ?by	 ?17%	 ? from	 ?2006	 ?to	 ?2012,	 ?while	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?consumption	 ?per	 ?square	 ?metre	 ?decreased	 ?by	 ?18%.	 ?	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.9:	 ?UBC?s	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Consumption	 ?Intensity	 ?2006	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?UBC	 ?Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office,	 ?UBC	 ?Planning	 ?&	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?(http://www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/students/students.htm)	 ?	 ? 	 ?0	 ?0.2	 ?0.4	 ?0.6	 ?0.8	 ?1	 ?1.2	 ?1.4	 ?0	 ?5	 ?10	 ?15	 ?20	 ?25	 ?30	 ?35	 ?2006	 ? 2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M	 ?Nautral	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ?Year	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ? Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M	 ?Trendline	 ?(Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Student)	 ? Trendline	 ?(Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M)	 ?	 ? 91	 ?Given	 ?that	 ?the	 ?GHG	 ?intensity	 ?of	 ?electricity	 ?is	 ?much	 ?lower	 ?than	 ?that	 ?of	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?in	 ?BC,	 ? these	 ? trends	 ? have	 ? culminated	 ? in	 ? decreasing	 ? trends	 ? in	 ? both	 ? GHG	 ? intensity	 ? per	 ?student	 ?and	 ?stationary	 ?GHG	 ?per	 ?square	 ?metre	 ?(See	 ?Figure	 ?4.10	 ?below).	 ?	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.10:	 ?UBC?s	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?Intensity	 ?2000	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?UBC	 ?Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office,	 ?UBC	 ?Planning	 ?&	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?(http://www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/students/students.htm)	 ?0	 ?0.02	 ?0.04	 ?0.06	 ?0.08	 ?0.1	 ?0	 ?0.5	 ?1	 ?1.5	 ?2	 ?2.5	 ?2000	 ? 2001	 ? 2002	 ? 2003	 ? 2004	 ? 2005	 ? 2006	 ? 2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?GHG	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M	 ?GHG	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ?Year	 ?GHG	 ?per	 ?student	 ? Stationary	 ?GHG	 ?per	 ?sq	 ?metre	 ?	 ? 92	 ?It	 ? should	 ?be	 ?noted	 ?here	 ? that	 ? there	 ?does	 ?not	 ? appear	 ? to	 ?be	 ? any	 ?discernible	 ? trend	 ?of	 ?reduction	 ? in	 ?either	 ?UBC?s	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?or	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?since	 ?2008	 ?when	 ?the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? was	 ? announced,	 ? nor	 ? since	 ? 2010	 ? when	 ? PSOs	 ? are	 ? required	 ? to	 ?purchase	 ?offsets	 ?for	 ?their	 ?remaining	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?Changes	 ?in	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?seem	 ?to	 ?be	 ?part	 ?of	 ?longer-??term	 ?trends	 ?in	 ?UBC.	 ?	 ?4.5.3	 ? Simon	 ?Fraser	 ?University	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?provided	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?data	 ?for	 ?2007,	 ?the	 ?year	 ?when	 ?its	 ?GHG	 ?inventory	 ?was	 ?done	 ?for	 ?the	 ?first	 ?time,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?years	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?Like	 ?UBC,	 ?we	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?two	 ?energy	 ?sources	 ??	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?and	 ?electricity,	 ?which	 ?account	 ?for	 ?the	 ?bulk	 ?of	 ?SFU?s	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?As	 ?can	 ?be	 ?seen	 ?in	 ?Figure	 ?4.11	 ?below,	 ?SFU?s	 ?electricity	 ?consumption	 ? increased	 ? from	 ?2007	 ? to	 ?2010,	 ?but	 ?has	 ?been	 ?decreasing	 ? slightly	 ? since	 ?2010.	 ?Natural	 ?gas	 ?consumption	 ?is	 ?on	 ?a	 ?slight	 ?downward	 ?trend	 ?over	 ?the	 ?period,	 ?with	 ?fluctuations	 ? from	 ? year	 ? to	 ? year,	 ? depending	 ? on	 ? heating	 ? and	 ? cooling	 ? requirements	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?the	 ?weather	 ?in	 ?that	 ?year.	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.11:	 ?SFU?s	 ?Electricity	 ?And	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Consumption	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Source:	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?(Facilities	 ?Development	 ?Unit)	 ?0	 ?50	 ?100	 ?150	 ?200	 ?250	 ?300	 ?350	 ?400	 ?0	 ?10	 ?20	 ?30	 ?40	 ?50	 ?60	 ?70	 ?80	 ?2005	 ? 2006	 ? 2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?('000	 ?GJ)	 ?Electricity	 ?(GWh)	 ?Year	 ?Electricity	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?	 ? 93	 ?SFU?s	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? that	 ? are	 ? covered	 ?under	 ?CNG	 ?have	 ?been	 ?on	 ? a	 ? declining	 ? trend	 ?(See	 ? Figure	 ? 4.12).	 ? Like	 ? UBC,	 ? SFU?s	 ? fleet	 ? emissions	 ? also	 ? showed	 ? a	 ? pronounced	 ?downward	 ? trend,	 ? with	 ? a	 ? reduction	 ? of	 ? about	 ? 74%	 ? from	 ? 2007	 ? to	 ? 2012.	 ? The	 ? drop	 ?seems	 ?most	 ? pronounced	 ? from	 ?2007	 ? to	 ? 2010,	 ?when	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? first	 ? came	 ? into	 ?effect.	 ?The	 ?drop	 ? from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012	 ?was	 ?not	 ?as	 ?steep,	 ? in	 ?comparison	 ?to	 ? the	 ?earlier	 ?period.	 ?	 ?Figure	 ? 4.12:	 ? SFU?s	 ? GHG	 ? Emissions	 ? Covered	 ? by	 ? ?Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Government?	 ?and	 ?Fleet	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?(Facilities	 ?Development	 ?Unit)	 ?0	 ?200	 ?400	 ?600	 ?800	 ?1,000	 ?1,200	 ?1,400	 ?1,600	 ?1,800	 ?0	 ?2,000	 ?4,000	 ?6,000	 ?8,000	 ?10,000	 ?12,000	 ?14,000	 ?16,000	 ?18,000	 ?20,000	 ?2005	 ? 2006	 ? 2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Fleet	 ?GHG	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ?GHG	 ?Covered	 ?by	 ?CNG	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ?Year	 ?GHG	 ?covered	 ?by	 ?CNG	 ? Fleet	 ?GHG	 ? Trendline	 ?(GHG	 ?covered	 ?by	 ?CNG)	 ?	 ? 94	 ?SFU?s	 ?expansion	 ?in	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?enrolment	 ?and	 ?physical	 ?stock	 ?of	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?facilities	 ?were	 ?rapid	 ?during	 ?recent	 ?years.	 ?Figure	 ?4.13	 ?below	 ?shows	 ?the	 ?increases	 ?in	 ?enrolment	 ?and	 ? total	 ? floor	 ? space	 ? since	 ? 2005.	 ? Enrolment	 ? increased	 ? 31%	 ? from	 ? 2005	 ? to	 ? 2012,	 ?while	 ?total	 ?floor	 ?space	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?35%.	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.13:	 ?SFU?s	 ?Total	 ?Floor	 ?Space	 ?and	 ?Enrolment	 ?2005	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?Campus	 ?Space	 ?Inventory	 ?(http://www.sfu.ca/fs/Campus-??Facility-??Profiles/Campus-??Space-??Inventory.html);	 ?SFU	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Planning	 ?(http://www.sfu.ca/irp/enrollments/EnrollmentDashboard.html)	 ?	 ? 	 ?0	 ?3,000	 ?6,000	 ?9,000	 ?12,000	 ?15,000	 ?18,000	 ?21,000	 ?24,000	 ?27,000	 ?30,000	 ?0	 ?50,000	 ?100,000	 ?150,000	 ?200,000	 ?250,000	 ?300,000	 ?350,000	 ?400,000	 ?450,000	 ?500,000	 ?2005	 ? 2006	 ? 2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Enrolment	 ?(Annual	 ?FTE)	 ?Total	 ?Floor	 ?Space	 ?(Sq	 ?M)	 ?Year	 ?Total	 ?Floor	 ?Space	 ? Enrolment	 ?	 ? 95	 ?The	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?enrolment	 ?and	 ?building	 ?stock	 ?has	 ?been	 ?accompanied	 ?by	 ?an	 ?increase	 ?in	 ? electricity	 ? consumption,	 ? as	 ? noted	 ? earlier	 ? in	 ? Figure	 ? 4.11.	 ? However,	 ? although	 ?electricity	 ? consumption	 ? intensity	 ? per	 ? square	 ? metre	 ? has	 ? been	 ? increasing	 ? slightly,	 ?Figure	 ? 4.14	 ? shows	 ? that	 ? electricity	 ? consumption	 ? intensity	 ? per	 ? student	 ? has	 ? been	 ?decreasing	 ?from	 ?2007	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.14:	 ?SFU?s	 ?Electricity	 ?Consumption	 ?Intensity	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?(Facilities	 ?Development	 ?Unit);	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?Campus	 ?Space	 ?Inventory	 ?(http://www.sfu.ca/fs/Campus-??Facility-??Profiles/Campus-??Space-??Inventory.html);	 ?SFU	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Planning	 ?(http://www.sfu.ca/irp/enrollments/EnrollmentDashboard.html)	 ?160	 ?170	 ?180	 ?190	 ?200	 ?210	 ?220	 ?230	 ?240	 ?2,500	 ?2,600	 ?2,700	 ?2,800	 ?2,900	 ?3,000	 ?3,100	 ?2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Electricity	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M	 ?Electricity	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ?Year	 ?Electricity	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ? Electricity	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M	 ?Trendline	 ?(Electricity	 ?Per	 ?Student)	 ? Trendline	 ?(Electricity	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M)	 ?	 ? 96	 ?Like	 ?UBC,	 ?SFU?s	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?consumption	 ?intensity	 ?has	 ?also	 ?been	 ?decreasing.	 ?Natural	 ?gas	 ?consumption	 ?per	 ?student	 ?decreased	 ?by	 ?22%	 ?from	 ?2007	 ?to	 ?2012,	 ?while	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?consumption	 ?per	 ?square	 ?metre	 ?decreased	 ?by	 ?17%.	 ?	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.15:	 ?SFU?s	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Consumption	 ?Intensity	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?(Facilities	 ?Development	 ?Unit);	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?Campus	 ?Space	 ?Inventory	 ?(http://www.sfu.ca/fs/Campus-??Facility-??Profiles/Campus-??Space-??Inventory.html);	 ?SFU	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Planning	 ?(http://www.sfu.ca/irp/enrollments/EnrollmentDashboard.html)	 ?0	 ?0.2	 ?0.4	 ?0.6	 ?0.8	 ?1	 ?1.2	 ?1.4	 ?0	 ?2	 ?4	 ?6	 ?8	 ?10	 ?12	 ?14	 ?16	 ?2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ?Year	 ?Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ? Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M	 ?Trendline	 ?(Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Student)	 ? Trendline	 ?(Natural	 ?Gas	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M)	 ?	 ? 97	 ?Overall,	 ?SFU?s	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? intensity	 ?per	 ?student	 ?and	 ?stationary	 ?GHG	 ?per	 ?square	 ?metre	 ?have	 ?been	 ?decreasing	 ?over	 ?time	 ?(See	 ?Figure	 ?4.16	 ?below).	 ?	 ?	 ?Figure	 ?4.16:	 ?SFU?s	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?Intensity	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?(Facilities	 ?Development	 ?Unit);	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?Campus	 ?Space	 ?Inventory	 ?(http://www.sfu.ca/fs/Campus-??Facility-??Profiles/Campus-??Space-??Inventory.html);	 ?SFU	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Planning	 ?(http://www.sfu.ca/irp/enrollments/EnrollmentDashboard.html)	 ?0	 ?0.01	 ?0.02	 ?0.03	 ?0.04	 ?0.05	 ?0.06	 ?0.07	 ?0.08	 ?0	 ?0.1	 ?0.2	 ?0.3	 ?0.4	 ?0.5	 ?0.6	 ?0.7	 ?0.8	 ?0.9	 ?1	 ?2005	 ? 2006	 ? 2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?GHG	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?M	 ?GHG	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ?Year	 ?GHG	 ?Per	 ?Student	 ? Stationary	 ?GHG	 ?Per	 ?Sq	 ?Metre	 ?	 ? 98	 ?Given	 ?the	 ?limited	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?data	 ?available	 ?for	 ?SFU?s	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ? it	 ? cannot	 ? be	 ? concluded	 ? whether	 ? there	 ? is	 ? any	 ? discernible	 ? trend	 ? of	 ?reduction	 ? in	 ?either	 ?SFU?s	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?or	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?since	 ?2008	 ?when	 ?the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? was	 ? announced,	 ? nor	 ? since	 ? 2010	 ? when	 ? PSOs	 ? are	 ? required	 ? to	 ?purchase	 ?offsets	 ?for	 ?their	 ?remaining	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?4.6	 ? Summary	 ?of	 ?Quantitative	 ?Analysis	 ?During	 ?the	 ?3	 ?years	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012,	 ?when	 ?PSOs	 ?in	 ?BC	 ?are	 ?mandated	 ?to	 ?purchase	 ?carbon	 ? offsets	 ? for	 ? their	 ? emissions	 ? covered	 ? under	 ? CNG,	 ? there	 ? was	 ? no	 ? significant	 ?reduction	 ? in	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? for	 ? the	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? as	 ? a	 ? whole.	 ? However,	 ? sectoral	 ?performance	 ?was	 ?varied,	 ? ranging	 ? from	 ? increases	 ?of	 ?1.8%	 ? to	 ?5.7%.	 ?Emissions	 ? from	 ?post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? increased	 ? by	 ? 4.9%	 ? over	 ? the	 ? period,	 ? being	 ? the	 ?median	 ?among	 ?the	 ?sectors,	 ?but	 ?above	 ?the	 ?average	 ?of	 ?3.8%	 ?for	 ?the	 ?Public	 ?Sector.	 ?In	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?offsets	 ? purchased,	 ? the	 ? quantity	 ? purchased	 ? by	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? held	 ?steady	 ? in	 ?2012	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?2010,	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?an	 ? increase	 ?of	 ?3.1%	 ?for	 ?the	 ?Public	 ?Sector.	 ?	 ?	 ?Emissions	 ? performance	 ? of	 ? individual	 ? PSOs	 ? over	 ? this	 ? period	 ? showed	 ? wider	 ?variations.	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?while	 ?some	 ?post-??secondary	 ?institutions	 ?recorded	 ?increases	 ?of	 ?close	 ?to	 ?20%,	 ?a	 ?few	 ?had	 ?only	 ?single-??digit	 ?increases	 ?and	 ?others	 ?even	 ?a	 ?decrease	 ?of	 ?10	 ? to	 ? 20%	 ? in	 ? their	 ? emissions.	 ? Among	 ? the	 ? 4	 ? case	 ? study	 ? organizations,	 ? offsets	 ?purchased	 ? by	 ? SFU	 ? and	 ? VCC	 ? held	 ? steady	 ? between	 ? 2010	 ? and	 ? 2012,	 ? while	 ? offsets	 ?purchased	 ?by	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?DO	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?5.1%	 ?and	 ?4.0%,	 ?respectively,	 ?over	 ?the	 ?same	 ?period.	 ?Their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? intensity,	 ?however,	 ?are	 ?on	 ?a	 ?downward	 ?trend,	 ?except	 ?for	 ?UBC,	 ?which	 ?held	 ?steady	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?A	 ?closer	 ? look	 ?at	 ? the	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?data	 ?of	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?shows	 ? that	 ? total	 ? electricity	 ? consumption	 ? continues	 ? to	 ? rise	 ? while	 ? natural	 ? gas	 ?	 ? 99	 ?consumption	 ? fluctuates,	 ? with	 ? a	 ? slight	 ? downward	 ? trend	 ? in	 ? SFU.	 ? UBC?s	 ? electricity	 ?consumption	 ? intensities	 ? per	 ? student	 ? and	 ? per	 ? square	 ? metre	 ? have	 ? both	 ? been	 ?increasing	 ? from	 ? 2006	 ? to	 ? 2012,	 ? but	 ? SFU?s	 ? electricity	 ? consumption	 ? intensity	 ? per	 ?student	 ? has	 ? been	 ? decreasing	 ? from	 ? 2007	 ? to	 ? 2012.	 ? Natural	 ? gas	 ? consumption	 ?intensities	 ?in	 ?both	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?show	 ?clear	 ?downward	 ?trends	 ?over	 ?time.	 ?	 ?	 ?Total	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?covered	 ?by	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?have	 ?been	 ?decreasing	 ?in	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ? over	 ? a	 ? longer	 ? period	 ? from	 ? 2000	 ? (for	 ? UBC)	 ? and	 ? 2007	 ? (for	 ? SFU).	 ? One	 ? main	 ?category	 ? of	 ? GHG	 ? emissions,	 ? i.e.	 ? fleet	 ? emissions,	 ? showed	 ? a	 ? much	 ? more	 ? significant	 ?downward	 ? trend	 ? after	 ? 2007,	 ? which	 ? is	 ? consistent	 ? with	 ? the	 ? findings	 ? of	 ? a	 ? study	 ? on	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?mentioned	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?1	 ?(Elgie	 ?2012).	 ?In	 ?both	 ?institutions,	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?intensities	 ?showed	 ?a	 ?more	 ?marked	 ?decline	 ?than	 ?total	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?over	 ?this	 ?longer	 ?period	 ?than	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?There	 ? does	 ? not	 ? appear	 ? to	 ? be	 ? any	 ? discernible	 ? change	 ? in	 ? the	 ? trend	 ? of	 ? reduction	 ? in	 ?either	 ?institutions?	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?or	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?since	 ?2008	 ?when	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ? was	 ? announced,	 ? nor	 ? since	 ? 2010	 ? when	 ? PSOs	 ? are	 ? required	 ? to	 ? purchase	 ?offsets	 ?for	 ?their	 ?remaining	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?Changes	 ?in	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?seem	 ?to	 ?be	 ?part	 ?of	 ?longer-??term	 ?trends	 ?in	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU.	 ?	 ?As	 ?a	 ?comparison,	 ?the	 ?draft	 ?2010	 ?Community	 ?Energy	 ?and	 ?Emissions	 ?Inventory	 ?(CEEI)	 ?reports	 ?show	 ?that	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? from	 ?residential,	 ?commercial	 ?and	 ?small/medium	 ?industrial	 ?buildings	 ? in	 ? the	 ?City	 ?of	 ?Vancouver	 ?decreased	 ?by	 ?6.3%,	 ?while	 ? that	 ? in	 ? the	 ?City	 ?of	 ?Burnaby	 ?decreased	 ?by	 ?6.1%	 ? from	 ?2007	 ? to	 ?2010	 ? (Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ? 2013d).	 ? Population	 ? increased	 ? in	 ?Vancouver	 ?by	 ?5.4%	 ?and	 ? in	 ?Burnaby	 ?by	 ?5.8%	 ?between	 ?2007	 ?and	 ?2010.	 ?Please	 ?see	 ?Tables	 ?4.6	 ?and	 ?4.7	 ?on	 ?the	 ?next	 ?page.	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 100	 ?Table	 ?4.6:	 ?Comparison	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?in	 ?2007	 ?and	 ?2010	 ?	 ? 2007	 ? 2010	 ? Percentage	 ?Change	 ?UBC	 ? 61,090	 ? 58,353	 ? -??4.5	 ?SFU	 ? 19,410	 ? 17,695	 ? -??8.8	 ?City	 ?of	 ?Vancouver	 ?Buildings	 ? 1,209,584	 ? 1,132,845	 ? -??6.3	 ?City	 ?of	 ?Burnaby	 ?Buildings	 ? 466,943	 ? 438,432	 ? -??6.1	 ?Sources:	 ?UBC	 ?Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office,	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?(Facilities	 ?Development	 ?Unit),	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013d).	 ?Table	 ?4.7:	 ?Comparison	 ?of	 ?Enrolment	 ?and	 ?Population	 ?in	 ?2007	 ?and	 ?2010	 ?	 ? 2007	 ? 2010	 ? Percentage	 ?Change	 ?UBC	 ? 37,589	 ? 40,961	 ? +9.0	 ?SFU	 ? 22,081	 ? 25,278	 ? +14.5	 ?City	 ?of	 ?Vancouver	 ? 610,136	 ? 642,843	 ? +5.4	 ?City	 ?of	 ?Burnaby	 ? 214,919	 ? 227,389	 ? +5.8	 ?Sources:	 ?UBC	 ?Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office,	 ?UBC	 ?Planning	 ?&	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?(http://www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/students/students.htm),	 ?SFU	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Planning	 ?(http://www.sfu.ca/irp/enrollments/EnrollmentDashboard.html),	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013d).	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 101	 ?5.	 ? Expert	 ?Interviews	 ?5.1	 ? Introduction	 ?A	 ? letter	 ? of	 ? invitation	 ? (Appendix	 ? E)	 ? was	 ? sent	 ? to	 ? each	 ? of	 ? the	 ? 4	 ? selected	 ? case	 ? study	 ?organizations	 ? in	 ? March	 ? 2013.	 ? SFU	 ? and	 ? UBC	 ? agreed	 ? to	 ? participate.	 ? Director	 ? of	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?of	 ?DO	 ?replied	 ?that	 ?they	 ?are	 ?unable	 ?to	 ?participate	 ?in	 ?this	 ?study.	 ?VCC	 ?did	 ?not	 ?respond	 ?at	 ?all,	 ?despite	 ?numerous	 ?reminders.	 ?	 ?	 ?Key	 ? personnel	 ? from	 ? the	 ? 2	 ? selected	 ? institutions	 ? that	 ? agreed	 ? to	 ? participate	 ? in	 ? the	 ?study,	 ?i.e.	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU,	 ?were	 ?interviewed	 ?during	 ?May	 ?and	 ?June	 ?of	 ?2013.	 ?A	 ?total	 ?of	 ?10	 ?interviews	 ? were	 ? conducted.	 ? All	 ? the	 ? interviewees	 ? are	 ? intimately	 ? involved	 ? in	 ?coordinating	 ?or	 ?implementing	 ?actions	 ?in	 ?response	 ?to	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ?and	 ?most	 ?of	 ?them	 ?are	 ?also	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?or	 ?support	 ?the	 ?decision-??making	 ?process	 ?for	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ? that	 ? impact	 ? on	 ? the	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? of	 ? their	 ? organization.	 ? The	 ? list	 ? of	 ?interviewees	 ? is	 ? given	 ? in	 ? Table	 ? 5.1	 ? on	 ? the	 ? next	 ? page.	 ? All	 ? interviewees	 ? signed	 ? the	 ?consent	 ?form,	 ?a	 ?sample	 ?of	 ?which	 ?is	 ?given	 ?in	 ?Appendix	 ?F.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 102	 ?Table	 ?5.1:	 ?List	 ?of	 ?Interviewees	 ?UBC	 ?Functional	 ?Area/Department	 ? Designation	 ? Name	 ?Campus	 ?&	 ?Community	 ?Planning	 ?	 ? Assistant	 ?Vice	 ?President	 ? Nancy	 ?Knight	 ?Infrastructure	 ?Planning	 ? Managing	 ?Director	 ? John	 ?Metras	 ?Building	 ?Operations	 ? Managing	 ?Director	 ? David	 ?Woodson	 ?UBC	 ?Sustainability	 ?Initiative	 ? Associate	 ?Provost,	 ?Sustainability	 ? Prof.	 ?John	 ?Robinson	 ?University	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office	 ? Director,	 ?Operational	 ?Sustainability	 ? Orion	 ?Henderson	 ?	 ?SFU	 ?	 ?Functional	 ?Area/Department	 ? Designation	 ? Name	 ?Finance	 ?&	 ?Administration	 ? Vice	 ?President	 ?Finance	 ?&	 ?Administration	 ? Dr	 ?Pat	 ?Hibbitts	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ? Chief	 ?Facilities	 ?Officers	 ? Larry	 ?Waddell	 ?Facilities	 ?Services/Facilities	 ?Operations	 ? Director	 ?of	 ?Maintenance	 ?&	 ?Operations	 ? Sam	 ?Dahabieh	 ?Facilities	 ?Services/Facilities	 ?Development	 ? Development	 ?Sustainability	 ?Manager	 ? Wendy	 ?Lee	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office	 ? Director,	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office	 ? K.C.	 ?Bell	 ?	 ?	 ? 103	 ?All	 ? the	 ? interviews	 ? were	 ? recorded	 ? with	 ? a	 ? digital	 ? voice	 ? recorder	 ? and	 ? transcribed	 ?verbatim.	 ? The	 ? findings	 ? from	 ? the	 ? interviews	 ? are	 ? reported	 ? below	 ? according	 ? to	 ? the	 ?main	 ?topics	 ?or	 ?headings	 ?as	 ?identified	 ?in	 ?the	 ?interview	 ?protocol	 ?(Appendix	 ?G).	 ?Where	 ?appropriate	 ?and	 ?useful,	 ?quotations	 ?from	 ?the	 ?interviews	 ?are	 ?used,	 ?without	 ?identifying	 ?the	 ?interviewee.	 ?	 ?	 ?5.2	 ? Actions	 ?Taken	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Mandate	 ?The	 ? first	 ? set	 ? of	 ? questions	 ? pertained	 ? to	 ? major	 ? climate	 ? change	 ? or	 ? related	 ? actions	 ?undertaken	 ? by	 ? the	 ? case	 ? study	 ? organizations	 ? prior	 ? to	 ? the	 ? mandating	 ? of	 ? CNG,	 ? and	 ?which	 ?parts	 ?of	 ?the	 ?organization	 ?were	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?or	 ?responsible	 ?for	 ?such	 ?actions.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?interviewees	 ?from	 ?UBC	 ?highlighted	 ?that	 ?UBC	 ?has	 ?a	 ?long	 ?history	 ?of	 ?sustainability	 ?efforts,	 ?of	 ?which	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?action	 ?was	 ?only	 ?one	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?larger	 ?sustainability	 ?agenda.	 ?From	 ?the	 ?establishment	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office	 ?in	 ?1998,	 ?energy	 ?reduction	 ? projects	 ? and	 ? lighting	 ? retrofits	 ? were	 ? driven	 ? by	 ? this	 ? Office,	 ? with	 ? active	 ?support	 ? and	 ? participation	 ? of	 ? the	 ? Building	 ? Operations	 ? team.	 ? The	 ? most	 ? extensive	 ?effort	 ?was	 ?the	 ?EcoTrek	 ?programme,	 ?a	 ?$39-??million	 ?investment	 ?in	 ?upgrades	 ?to	 ?lighting	 ?systems,	 ?building	 ?heating,	 ?ventilation,	 ?air-??conditioning	 ?systems	 ?and	 ?upgrades	 ?to	 ?the	 ?campus	 ? steam	 ? system.	 ? This	 ? project	 ? essentially	 ? led	 ? to	 ? the	 ? University	 ? achieving	 ? its	 ?target	 ?of	 ?reducing	 ?academic	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?2007	 ?to	 ?6%	 ?below	 ?1990	 ?levels,	 ?which	 ?was	 ?Canada?s	 ?Kyoto	 ?Protocol	 ?target.	 ?	 ?	 ?During	 ? this	 ? period,	 ? there	 ? was	 ? some	 ? tracking	 ? done	 ? of	 ? building-??related	 ? GHG	 ?emissions,	 ? but	 ? it	 ?was	 ? not	 ? a	 ? comprehensive	 ? inventory	 ? that	 ? included	 ? all	 ? properties,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?off-??campus	 ?properties,	 ?nor	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?or	 ?fleet	 ?emissions.	 ?According	 ?to	 ?one	 ?interviewee,	 ??[In]	 ?January	 ?2008,	 ?nobody	 ?knew	 ?even	 ?what	 ?our	 ?greenhouse	 ?gas	 ?footprint	 ?was,	 ?let	 ?alone	 ?what	 ?the	 ?major	 ?factors	 ?were.?	 ?Although	 ?this	 ?statement	 ?is	 ?an	 ?exaggeration,	 ? it	 ? does	 ? emphasize	 ? the	 ? point	 ? that	 ? awareness	 ? of	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ?	 ? 104	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?the	 ?importance	 ?placed	 ?on	 ?reducing	 ?them	 ?were	 ?much	 ?lower	 ?then	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?now.	 ?	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?the	 ?interviewees	 ?from	 ?SFU,	 ?SFU	 ?has	 ?been	 ?actively	 ?pursuing	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?its	 ?utility	 ?usage,	 ?particularly	 ?energy,	 ?since	 ?around	 ?the	 ?Middle	 ?East	 ?Oil	 ?Embargo	 ?in	 ?1976.	 ?SFU?s	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?Department	 ?had	 ?done	 ?a	 ?lot	 ?of	 ?small	 ?and	 ?incremental	 ?projects	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? energy	 ? consumption,	 ? using	 ? whatever	 ? internal	 ? funds	 ? were	 ?available,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?funding	 ?from	 ?agencies	 ?such	 ?as	 ?BC	 ?Hydro.	 ?Energy	 ?conservation	 ?and	 ? efficiency	 ? and	 ? cost	 ? savings	 ? were	 ? the	 ? focus,	 ? rather	 ? than	 ? any	 ? explicit	 ? focus	 ? on	 ?reducing	 ?carbon	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?SFU	 ? had	 ? invested	 ? in	 ? several	 ? rounds	 ? of	 ? lighting	 ? retrofits	 ? for	 ? the	 ? main	 ? Burnaby	 ?Campus,	 ? starting	 ? with	 ? de-??lamping	 ? projects	 ? at	 ? the	 ? beginning,	 ? resulting	 ? in	 ? very	 ?significant	 ? savings	 ? to	 ? their	 ? electricity	 ? bills	 ? even	 ? as	 ? the	 ? Campus	 ? expanded.	 ? The	 ?Campus	 ? has	 ? one	 ? of	 ? the	 ? largest	 ? hot	 ? water	 ? district	 ? energy	 ? systems	 ? in	 ? the	 ? Lower	 ?Mainland.	 ? Renewals	 ? and	 ? upgrades	 ? of	 ? the	 ? boilers	 ? and	 ? associated	 ? equipment	 ? had	 ?ensured	 ? that	 ? they	 ? are	 ? now	 ? operating	 ? at	 ? very	 ? high	 ? efficiencies	 ? compared	 ? to	 ? the	 ?industry	 ?average	 ?for	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?heating	 ?systems.	 ?SFU	 ?also	 ?made	 ?an	 ?early	 ?decision	 ?at	 ?the	 ?Burnaby	 ?Campus	 ?not	 ?to	 ?air-??condition	 ?people,	 ?only	 ?equipment.	 ?This	 ?has	 ?saved	 ?the	 ?University	 ?a	 ?lot	 ?of	 ?money,	 ?energy	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?output.	 ?	 ?	 ?All	 ?of	 ?the	 ?SFU	 ?interviewees	 ?were	 ?of	 ?the	 ?opinion	 ?that	 ?SFU	 ?had	 ?already	 ?made	 ?so	 ?much	 ?progress	 ? during	 ? the	 ? last	 ? 3	 ? decades	 ? on	 ? its	 ? energy	 ? consumption,	 ? before	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?requirement	 ? came	 ? into	 ? place,	 ? that	 ? all	 ? the	 ? 'low	 ? hanging	 ? fruit'	 ? had	 ? already	 ? been	 ?harvested.	 ? It	 ?was	 ? therefore	 ? ?getting	 ?more	 ?difficult	 ? to	 ? address	 ? energy	 ? conservation	 ?without	 ?taking	 ?more	 ?dramatic,	 ?expensive	 ?steps?.	 ?	 ?	 ? 105	 ?5.3	 ? Changes	 ?since	 ?the	 ?Mandate	 ?Next,	 ?the	 ?interviewees	 ?were	 ?asked	 ?to	 ?list	 ?major	 ?new	 ?actions	 ?that	 ?their	 ?organization	 ?has	 ?undertaken	 ?since	 ?CNG	 ?was	 ?mandated,	 ?and	 ?whether	 ?there	 ?has	 ?been	 ?any	 ?change	 ?in	 ?whom	 ?or	 ?which	 ?department	 ?is	 ?responsible	 ?for	 ?such	 ?actions.	 ?The	 ?interviewees	 ?were	 ?also	 ? asked	 ? whether	 ? the	 ? organization	 ? has	 ? identified	 ? opportunities	 ? for	 ? significant	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?emissions	 ?that	 ?are	 ?not	 ?covered	 ?by	 ?the	 ?mandate.	 ?	 ?	 ?According	 ? to	 ? the	 ?UBC	 ? interviewees,	 ? at	 ? about	 ? the	 ? same	 ? time	 ? that	 ? the	 ?BC	 ?Provincial	 ?Government	 ? announced	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? initiative,	 ? UBC	 ? was	 ? working	 ? on	 ? a	 ? new	 ? climate	 ?action	 ? plan.	 ? This	 ? plan	 ? and	 ? its	 ? aggressive	 ? emission	 ? reduction	 ? targets	 ? were	 ? later	 ?approved	 ?by	 ? the	 ?UBC	 ?Board	 ?of	 ?Governors	 ?and	 ?announced	 ?by	 ? the	 ?UBC	 ?President	 ? in	 ?2010.	 ?Several	 ?of	 ?the	 ?interviewees	 ?were	 ?of	 ?the	 ?opinion	 ?that	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?CNG	 ?legislation	 ? played	 ? a	 ? big	 ? role	 ? in	 ? getting	 ? the	 ? Board?s	 ? endorsement	 ? for	 ? the	 ? Climate	 ?Action	 ? Plan	 ? (CAP)	 ? and	 ? the	 ? emission	 ? reduction	 ? targets.	 ? They	 ? also	 ? facilitated	 ? the	 ?subsequent	 ? approval	 ? of	 ? over	 ? $150	 ? million	 ? in	 ? capital	 ? projects	 ? as	 ? part	 ? of	 ? the	 ?implementation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CAP,	 ?which	 ?has	 ?placed	 ?UBC	 ?on	 ?track	 ?to	 ?reach	 ?their	 ?2015	 ?GHG	 ?reduction	 ?targets2.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?3	 ?main	 ?projects	 ? in	 ? the	 ?CAP	 ?are	 ?(a)	 ? the	 ?steam	 ?to	 ?hot	 ?water	 ?conversion	 ?project,	 ??which	 ? not	 ? only	 ? does	 ? GHG	 ? reductions	 ? and	 ? energy	 ? savings	 ? and	 ? therefore	 ? financial	 ?savings,	 ?but	 ?also	 ?provides	 ? the	 ?platform	 ?of	 ?hot	 ?water	 ? for	 ?other	 ?kinds	 ?of	 ? low-??carbon	 ?generation?;	 ?(b)	 ?the	 ?Bioenergy	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Demonstration	 ?Facility	 ?(BRDF);	 ?and	 ?(c)	 ?the	 ? Continuous	 ? Optimization	 ? Programme	 ? (COP),	 ? which	 ? is	 ? looking	 ? at	 ? the	 ? existing	 ?infrastructure	 ?and	 ?trying	 ?to	 ?improve	 ?the	 ?energy	 ?performance	 ?of	 ?that	 ?infrastructure	 ?with	 ? retrofit	 ? projects.	 ? These,	 ? and	 ? other	 ? smaller	 ? projects,	 ? demonstrate	 ? a	 ? ?much	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?2	 ?Given	 ?its	 ?actual	 ?emissions	 ?performance	 ?from	 ?2007	 ?to	 ?2012	 ?(i.e.	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?only	 ?0.6%),	 ?which	 ?included	 ?the	 ?commencement	 ?of	 ?operation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Bioenergy	 ?Research	 ?and	 ?Demonstration	 ?Facility	 ? in	 ?September	 ?2012,	 ? it	 ? is	 ?unclear	 ?whether	 ?UBC	 ?would	 ?be	 ?able	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?emissions	 ?by	 ?33%	 ?by	 ?2015.	 ?	 ? 106	 ?higher	 ?level	 ?of	 ?investment	 ?in	 ?GHG	 ?reduction	 ?projects	 ?in	 ?the	 ?last	 ?4	 ?years	 ?than	 ??	 ?ever	 ?in	 ?UBC?s	 ?history.?	 ?	 ?	 ?Most	 ? of	 ? the	 ? UBC	 ? interviewees	 ? believe	 ? that	 ? CNG	 ? and	 ? carbon	 ? pricing	 ? have	 ? been	 ?positive	 ?for	 ?UBC?s	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?efforts.	 ?Besides	 ?helping	 ?to	 ?strengthen	 ?the	 ?business	 ?case	 ? for	 ? infrastructure	 ?or	 ? capital	 ? projects	 ? (more	 ?on	 ? this	 ? in	 ? Section	 ?5.4),	 ? they	 ?have	 ?also	 ? reinforced	 ? and	 ? supported	 ? the	 ? path	 ? that	 ? UBC	 ? was	 ? moving	 ? towards,	 ? such	 ? as	 ?cementing	 ?the	 ?minimum	 ?requirement	 ?that	 ?all	 ?new	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?major	 ?renovations	 ?must	 ? be	 ? LEED-??Gold	 ? certified,	 ? so	 ? that	 ? ?when	 ? there	 ? is	 ? a	 ? government	 ?mandate,	 ? ?	 ? it	 ?becomes	 ?non-??negotiable.	 ?And	 ?it	 ?doesn?t	 ?become	 ?a	 ?situation	 ?where	 ?you?re	 ?trading	 ?off	 ?sustainability	 ? for	 ?other	 ?elements.?	 ?This	 ?has	 ?enabled	 ?UBC	 ? to	 ? incorporate	 ? the	 ?LEED-??Gold	 ? requirements	 ? and	 ? energy	 ? use	 ? intensity	 ? targets	 ? into	 ? the	 ? UBC	 ? Technical	 ?Guidelines	 ?for	 ?building	 ?developments.	 ?Building	 ?Operations	 ?is	 ?also	 ?able,	 ?as	 ?the	 ?leases	 ?for	 ? their	 ?vehicles	 ?roll	 ?over,	 ? to	 ?replace	 ? the	 ?old	 ?vehicles	 ?with	 ?more	 ?efficient	 ?vehicles	 ?and	 ? look	 ? for	 ? opportunities	 ? to	 ? fuel-??switch	 ? to	 ? electric,	 ? biodiesel	 ? or	 ? natural	 ? gas	 ?vehicles,	 ?where	 ?appropriate.	 ?	 ?	 ?UBC	 ? has	 ? completed	 ? a	 ? comprehensive	 ? GHG	 ? inventory	 ? that	 ? includes	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ?emissions.	 ?Having	 ?the	 ?data	 ?allows	 ?UBC	 ?at	 ?least	 ?to	 ?know	 ?the	 ?magnitude	 ?of	 ?the	 ?issue,	 ?and	 ?there	 ?have	 ?been	 ?various	 ?attempts	 ?to	 ?create	 ?programming	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?these	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions,	 ? such	 ?as	 ?what	 ? the	 ?TREK	 ?programme	 ? is	 ?doing	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ?air	 ? travel,	 ? and	 ??development	 ?of	 ?a	 ?Live-??Work-??Learn	 ?community	 ?at	 ?UBC,	 ?so	 ?people	 ?who	 ?work	 ?at	 ?UBC	 ?can	 ?also	 ?live	 ?here,	 ??	 ?result	 ?in	 ?reduced	 ?transportation	 ?travel.?	 ?UBC	 ?is	 ?also	 ?measuring	 ?embodied	 ? emissions	 ? and	 ? looking	 ? at	 ? reducing	 ? the	 ? embodied	 ? energy	 ? of	 ? buildings.	 ?However,	 ?there	 ?is	 ?not	 ?as	 ?much	 ?emphasis	 ?and	 ?political	 ?will	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?these	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ? compared	 ? to	 ? scope	 ? 1	 ? and	 ? 2	 ? emissions	 ? that	 ? are	 ? directly	 ? under	 ? UBC?s	 ?control	 ?and	 ?covered	 ?under	 ?CNG.	 ?	 ?	 ? 107	 ?In	 ?terms	 ?of	 ?organizational	 ?responsibilities	 ?for	 ?climate	 ?action,	 ?one	 ?major	 ?piece	 ?is	 ?the	 ?creation	 ?of	 ? the	 ?UBC	 ?Sustainability	 ? Initiative	 ? (USI)	 ? in	 ?2010	 ? to	 ? integrate	 ?operational	 ?sustainability	 ?goals	 ?and	 ?initiatives	 ?with	 ?academic	 ?research	 ?and	 ?teaching	 ?within	 ?the	 ?University.	 ? This	 ? ?has	 ? been	 ? sort	 ? of	 ? a	 ? step	 ? change	 ? in	 ? UBC?s	 ? engagement	 ? with	 ?sustainability,	 ? and	 ? the	 ? climate	 ? programme	 ? is	 ? part	 ? of	 ? that?.	 ? The	 ? Campus	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office	 ? is	 ? still	 ? responsible	 ? for	 ?monitoring	 ?operational	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ?the	 ? campus,	 ? although	 ? it	 ? has	 ? come	 ? under	 ? the	 ? Campus	 ? and	 ? Community	 ? Planning	 ?Department	 ? since	 ? 2009.	 ? Building	 ? Operations	 ? is	 ? also	 ? still	 ? responsible	 ? for	 ? the	 ?operational	 ?aspects	 ?of	 ?managing	 ?emissions,	 ?while	 ?UBC	 ?Infrastructure	 ?Development	 ?is	 ?responsible	 ?for	 ?the	 ?planning	 ?and	 ?development	 ?of	 ?campus	 ?facilities,	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?infrastructure,	 ? with	 ? a	 ? mandate	 ? to	 ? try	 ? to	 ? make	 ? these	 ? buildings	 ? as	 ? sustainable	 ? as	 ?possible,	 ?and	 ?minimize	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?footprint	 ?and	 ?the	 ?energy	 ?use	 ?of	 ?those	 ?facilities.	 ?	 ?With	 ?the	 ?passage	 ?of	 ?CNG	 ?legislation,	 ?SFU	 ?has	 ?added	 ?a	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?to	 ?its	 ?energy	 ?conservation	 ?and	 ?efficiency	 ?effort,	 ?which	 ?it	 ?did	 ?not	 ?have	 ?before.	 ?SFU	 ?engaged	 ?a	 ? consultant	 ? to	 ? develop	 ? and	 ? document	 ? its	 ? GHG	 ? inventory,	 ? as	 ? well	 ? as	 ? identify	 ?opportunities	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? these	 ? emissions.	 ? SFU	 ? also	 ? plans	 ? to	 ? begin	 ? to	 ? quantify	 ?emissions	 ? from	 ? international	 ? travel,	 ? either	 ? by	 ? students	 ? enrolled	 ? in	 ? exchange	 ?programmes	 ? or	 ? overseas	 ? field	 ? schools	 ? or	 ? other	 ? things,	 ? and	 ? by	 ? faculty	 ? and	 ? staff	 ?traveling	 ?to	 ?conferences	 ?and	 ?other	 ?things	 ?on	 ?university	 ?business.	 ?	 ?	 ?However,	 ? SFU	 ? has	 ? not	 ? yet	 ? developed	 ? a	 ? comprehensive	 ? climate	 ? action	 ? plan	 ? that	 ?specifically	 ? addresses	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? reduction.	 ? It	 ? maintains	 ? a	 ? target	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ?energy	 ?use	 ?by	 ?2%	 ?a	 ? year.	 ? At	 ? the	 ? same	 ? time,	 ? they	 ?have	 ? a	 ? general	 ? goal	 ? to	 ?meet	 ? the	 ?provincial	 ? requirement	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? their	 ? carbon	 ? output	 ? by	 ? 2020.	 ? SFU	 ? is	 ? also	 ?considering	 ?the	 ?creation	 ?of	 ?an	 ?energy	 ?management	 ?plan,	 ?so	 ?that	 ??rather	 ?than	 ?being	 ?a	 ?series	 ?of	 ?ad	 ?hoc	 ?interventions	 ?and	 ?opportunities	 ?taken	 ?as	 ?they	 ?arise,	 ?there	 ?would	 ?be	 ?a	 ?more	 ?conscious,	 ?thoughtful	 ?plan	 ?which	 ?things	 ?would	 ?be	 ?laid	 ?out	 ?and	 ?prepared	 ?for	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?just	 ?addressed	 ?as	 ?money	 ?comes	 ?available.?	 ?	 ? 108	 ?Unlike	 ?UBC,	 ?SFU	 ?has	 ?not	 ?undertaken	 ?a	 ?major	 ?new	 ?infrastructure	 ?project	 ?since	 ?CNG	 ?was	 ?mandated.	 ?They	 ?have	 ?been	 ?undertaking	 ?a	 ?study	 ?on	 ?replacing	 ?or	 ?supplementing	 ?their	 ? natural	 ? gas	 ? central	 ? heating	 ? plant	 ? with	 ? a	 ? biomass	 ? heating	 ? plant,	 ? as	 ? part	 ? of	 ? a	 ?district	 ? energy	 ? system	 ? with	 ? the	 ? private	 ? residential	 ? community	 ? development	 ? on	 ?Burnaby	 ?Mountain,	 ?but	 ?a	 ?decision	 ?has	 ?not	 ?been	 ?taken	 ?to	 ?proceed.	 ?	 ?	 ?According	 ?to	 ?the	 ?interviewees,	 ?the	 ?major	 ?renovation	 ?projects	 ?undertaken	 ?since	 ?2008	 ?were	 ?not	 ?made	 ?as	 ?a	 ?direct	 ?result	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ?but	 ?rather	 ?to	 ?meet	 ?needs	 ?that	 ?they	 ? have	 ? in	 ? terms	 ? of	 ? retrofits	 ? or	 ? renewal	 ? of	 ? infrastructure	 ? or	 ? programmatic	 ?needs.	 ?However,	 ?these	 ?renovations	 ?were	 ?subjected	 ?to	 ?the	 ?standard	 ?requirement	 ?for	 ?LEED-??Gold	 ? certification,	 ?which	 ?was	 ? imposed	 ? together	 ?with	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate.	 ? The	 ?other	 ?projects	 ?were	 ?tweaking	 ?of	 ?systems	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?major	 ?overhauls,	 ?and	 ? include	 ?projects	 ?done	 ?under	 ?BC	 ?Hydro?s	 ?COP.	 ?	 ?	 ?One	 ? interviewee	 ? observed	 ? that	 ? CNG	 ? has	 ? not	 ? made	 ? much	 ? of	 ? a	 ? difference	 ? to	 ? SFU?s	 ?climate	 ?actions	 ?or	 ?energy	 ?conservation	 ?efforts	 ?so	 ?far,	 ?because	 ?SFU	 ?is	 ?already	 ??a	 ?real	 ?leader	 ?in	 ?energy	 ?reduction	 ?type	 ?of	 ?projects?	 ?before	 ?CNG.	 ?Another	 ?two	 ?have	 ?observed	 ?that	 ?the	 ?new	 ?central	 ?heating	 ?plant,	 ?if	 ?it	 ?was	 ?decided	 ?that	 ?it	 ?would	 ?proceed,	 ?would	 ?be	 ?the	 ? one	 ? key	 ? project	 ? that	 ? would	 ? be	 ? directly	 ? influenced	 ? by	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate,	 ?specifically	 ? because	 ? of	 ? the	 ? potential	 ? to	 ? switch	 ? fuels	 ? to	 ? drastically	 ? reduce	 ? GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?From	 ?an	 ?organizational	 ?perspective,	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?now	 ?comes	 ?under	 ? the	 ?portfolio	 ?of	 ?the	 ?newly	 ?established	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office.	 ?In	 ?the	 ?past,	 ?sustainability	 ?efforts	 ?were	 ?largely	 ? decentralized	 ? and	 ? so	 ? was	 ? the	 ? responsibility	 ? for	 ? reducing	 ? energy	 ?consumption.	 ? Monitoring	 ? of	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? was	 ? not	 ? a	 ? responsibility	 ? within	 ? the	 ?organization,	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?GGRTA.	 ?Now,	 ?because	 ?the	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office	 ?is	 ?reporting	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?they	 ?go	 ?to	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?and	 ?everybody	 ?else	 ?to	 ?collate	 ?the	 ?data	 ?and	 ?issue	 ?the	 ?reports.	 ?Notwithstanding	 ?that,	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?Department	 ?still	 ?has	 ?	 ? 109	 ?a	 ?huge	 ?role	 ?to	 ?play,	 ?since	 ?they	 ?control	 ?the	 ?systems	 ?that	 ?generate	 ?a	 ?lot	 ?of	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?5.4	 ? Decisions	 ?on	 ?Infrastructure	 ?Projects	 ?The	 ? next	 ? set	 ? of	 ? questions	 ? sought	 ? to	 ? understand	 ? the	 ? decision-??making	 ? process	 ? for	 ?infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? would	 ? significantly	 ? impact	 ? on	 ? the	 ? organization?s	 ? GHG	 ?emissions,	 ? including	 ? the	 ? important	 ? factors	 ? considered	 ? in	 ? evaluating	 ? such	 ? projects,	 ?how	 ?they	 ?are	 ?funded,	 ?and	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?requirement	 ?for	 ?an	 ?annual	 ?public	 ?report	 ?on	 ?actions	 ? taken	 ?had	 ? influenced	 ? the	 ?organization?s	 ? response	 ? to	 ? the	 ?mandate.	 ? Further,	 ?the	 ? interviewees	 ? were	 ? asked	 ? whether	 ? the	 ? mandate	 ? has	 ? made	 ? it	 ? easier	 ? for	 ? the	 ?organization	 ? to	 ? justify	 ? and	 ? decide	 ? on	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? substantially	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?and	 ?conversely,	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?mandate	 ?has	 ?made	 ?it	 ?harder	 ?to	 ?justify	 ? and	 ? decide	 ? on	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? substantially	 ? increase	 ? GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?In	 ?both	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU,	 ?major	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?above	 ?a	 ?certain	 ?dollar	 ?quantum	 ?have	 ?to	 ?be	 ?approved	 ?by	 ?the	 ?respective	 ?Board	 ?of	 ?Governors	 ?before	 ?they	 ?can	 ?proceed.	 ?Smaller	 ? projects,	 ? on	 ? the	 ? other	 ? hand,	 ? are	 ? undertaken	 ? and	 ? funded	 ? through	 ? the	 ?operational	 ?budgets	 ?of	 ? the	 ? facilities	 ?departments,	 ? i.e.	 ?UBC	 ?Building	 ?Operations	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?Facilities	 ?Services.	 ?As	 ?such,	 ?these	 ?smaller	 ?projects	 ?are	 ?typically	 ?done	 ?whenever	 ?internal	 ?funds	 ?are	 ?available.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?major	 ?difference	 ?between	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?is	 ?the	 ?size	 ?of	 ?their	 ?internal	 ?funds.	 ?UBC	 ?has	 ? a	 ? sizeable	 ? amount	 ? of	 ? working	 ? capital,	 ? which	 ? it	 ? has	 ? deployed	 ? to	 ? finance	 ?infrastructure	 ? projects.	 ? A	 ? prime	 ? example	 ? is	 ? the	 ? steam	 ? to	 ? hot	 ? water	 ? conversion	 ?project.	 ?Ten	 ?million	 ?out	 ?of	 ? the	 ? total	 ?project	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?$88.3	 ?million	 ? is	 ? funded	 ?by	 ?UBC	 ?through	 ? their	 ? Infrastructure	 ? Impact	 ? Charges,	 ? or	 ? basically	 ? the	 ? development	 ? cost	 ?charges	 ? collected	 ? from	 ?new	 ?developments	 ? on	 ? campus.	 ? The	 ? balance	 ? of	 ? the	 ? project,	 ?	 ? 110	 ?$78.3	 ?million,	 ?is	 ?financed	 ?by	 ?an	 ?internal	 ?loan	 ?and	 ?the	 ?debt	 ?servicing	 ?for	 ?that	 ?loan	 ?is	 ?essentially	 ? paid	 ? entirely	 ? out	 ? of	 ? the	 ? energy	 ? and	 ? operational	 ? savings	 ? derived	 ? from	 ?implementing	 ? the	 ?project,	 ? comprising	 ? commodity	 ? energy	 ? cost	 ? savings,	 ? operational	 ?savings	 ? and	 ? avoided	 ? maintenance	 ? costs.	 ? A	 ? substantial	 ? part	 ? of	 ? the	 ? savings	 ? on	 ? the	 ?energy	 ?commodity	 ?side	 ?is	 ?the	 ?avoidance	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?offsets.	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ? evaluating	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects,	 ? interviewees	 ? from	 ? UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU	 ? cite	 ? the	 ?economic	 ? returns	 ? or	 ? financial	 ? payback	 ? as	 ? one	 ? of	 ? the	 ? major	 ? factors	 ? that	 ? are	 ?considered.	 ? This	 ? encompasses	 ? the	 ? business	 ? case	 ? for	 ? the	 ? project,	 ? which	 ? takes	 ? into	 ?account	 ?the	 ?operational	 ?needs	 ?and	 ?lifecycle	 ?costs,	 ?including	 ?energy	 ?costs,	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?offsets	 ?over	 ?the	 ?lifetime	 ?of	 ?the	 ?project.	 ?Given	 ?the	 ?low	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?in	 ? recent	 ? years	 ? and	 ? very	 ? low	 ? cost	 ? of	 ? electricity	 ? in	 ? BC,	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? and	 ? carbon	 ?offset	 ? components	 ? therefore	 ? constitute	 ? a	 ? significant	 ? portion	 ? of	 ? the	 ? overall	 ? costs.	 ?Related	 ?to	 ?these	 ?are	 ?the	 ?risks	 ?of	 ?energy	 ?cost	 ?fluctuations	 ?and	 ?changes	 ?in	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?rate	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?offset	 ?price.	 ?	 ?	 ?Besides	 ? economic	 ? considerations,	 ? operational	 ? concerns	 ? are	 ? also	 ? looked	 ? at	 ? very	 ?seriously	 ?in	 ?deciding	 ?whether	 ?to	 ?implement	 ?an	 ?infrastructure	 ?project.	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?for	 ?SFU?s	 ?proposed	 ?biomass	 ?plant,	 ?factors	 ?considered	 ?include	 ?risks	 ?to	 ?the	 ?availability	 ?and	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?biomass	 ?supply,	 ?weather	 ?conditions	 ?that	 ?may	 ?disrupt	 ?fuel	 ?supply	 ?and	 ?the	 ?business	 ? relationship	 ? arrangements	 ? for	 ? the	 ? project	 ? if	 ? it	 ? involves	 ? a	 ? third	 ? party	 ?provider.	 ? Technology	 ? risks	 ? and	 ? the	 ? higher	 ? cost	 ? of	 ? alternative	 ? energy	 ? supplies	 ? are	 ?also	 ?high	 ?on	 ?the	 ?list	 ?of	 ?considerations	 ?for	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?aim	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ? fossil	 ? fuels.	 ? In	 ? UBC,	 ? the	 ? risk	 ? of	 ? technology	 ? obsolescence	 ? is	 ?leading	 ?to	 ?a	 ?preference	 ?for	 ?projects	 ?with	 ?shorter	 ?payback	 ?periods.	 ?	 ?Although	 ?SFU	 ?has	 ?not	 ?decided	 ?to	 ?proceed	 ?with	 ?a	 ?major	 ?infrastructure	 ?project	 ?since	 ?the	 ?mandating	 ?of	 ?CNG,	 ?they	 ?have	 ?reported	 ?an	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?overall	 ?awareness	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? in	 ? their	 ?decision-??making	 ?process.	 ?By	 ?assigning	 ?a	 ? cost	 ? to	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?	 ? 111	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?have	 ?provided	 ?a	 ?direct	 ? link	 ??between	 ? the	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?using	 ? carbon	 ?and	 ? the	 ?environmental	 ? impact,	 ??	 ? in	 ?a	 ?quantifiable	 ?way	 ?and	 ? it	 ? added	 ?cost	 ? to	 ? us	 ? as	 ? a	 ? disincentive	 ? to	 ? continue	 ? emitting.?	 ? Also,	 ? within	 ? the	 ? context	 ? of	 ? ?an	 ?institution	 ? where	 ? the	 ? government	 ? has	 ? been	 ? steadily	 ? reducing	 ? its	 ? funding	 ? for	 ? a	 ?decade,	 ?and	 ?where	 ?priorities	 ?are	 ?typically	 ?not	 ?directed	 ?at	 ?operational	 ? issues	 ?but	 ?at	 ?the	 ? teaching	 ? and	 ? research	 ? side	 ? of	 ? things,	 ? ?	 ? things	 ? like	 ? replacing	 ? light	 ? bulbs	 ? or	 ?turning	 ?down	 ?the	 ?heat,	 ?those	 ?were	 ?things	 ?that	 ?were	 ?not	 ?at	 ?the	 ?front	 ?of	 ?mind	 ?for	 ?the	 ?institution.	 ? So	 ?what	 ? Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ? Government,	 ?what	 ? the	 ? Act	 ? did	 ?was	 ? it	 ? pushed	 ?them	 ?to	 ?the	 ?forefront,	 ?so	 ?they	 ?had	 ?a	 ?more	 ?equal	 ?place	 ?at	 ?the	 ?table.?	 ?	 ?Similarly,	 ?one	 ?interviewee	 ?from	 ?UBC	 ?observed	 ?that	 ??the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?carbon	 ?neutral	 ?legislation	 ?raised	 ?the	 ?profile	 ?significantly,	 ?such	 ?that	 ?it	 ?was	 ?a	 ?line	 ?item	 ?in	 ? Board	 ? reports,	 ? whereas	 ? I	 ? don?t	 ? think	 ? it	 ? ever	 ? was	 ? before.	 ? So	 ? it	 ? serves	 ? to	 ?concentrate	 ?the	 ?mind,	 ??	 ?and	 ?people,	 ?you	 ?know,	 ?understood	 ?what	 ?are	 ?the	 ?taxes	 ?there	 ?for	 ? and	 ?what	 ? it?s	 ?meant	 ? to	 ? do.	 ? It?s	 ? really	 ?meant	 ? to	 ? affect	 ? that	 ? long	 ? term	 ? decision-??making.?	 ?Moreover,	 ??CNG	 ?has	 ?heightened	 ?the	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?finding	 ?low-??carbon	 ?sources	 ?of	 ?energy	 ?for	 ?the	 ?campus	 ?as	 ?a	 ?whole,	 ?just	 ?because	 ?there?s	 ?a	 ?financial	 ?imperative	 ?to	 ?try	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?offset	 ?cost	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?cost.?	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ? planning	 ? process	 ? around	 ? infrastructure	 ? has	 ? apparently	 ? undergone	 ? some	 ?changes	 ?in	 ?UBC,	 ?although	 ?not	 ?necessarily	 ?as	 ?a	 ?result	 ?of	 ?CNG	 ?alone.	 ?One	 ?interviewee	 ?mentioned	 ? that	 ? new	 ? tools	 ? and	 ? processes	 ? about	 ? sustainability	 ? have	 ? entered	 ? the	 ?planning	 ?process	 ?and	 ?many	 ?have	 ?now	 ?become	 ?mandated,	 ?so	 ?that	 ?it	 ?is	 ?actually	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ? standard	 ?process.	 ?The	 ?more	 ?of	 ? these	 ?get	 ? incorporated,	 ? the	 ?more	 ? sustainability	 ?becomes	 ?built	 ?in,	 ?instead	 ?of	 ?something	 ?that	 ?has	 ?to	 ?be	 ?fought	 ?for	 ?separately.	 ?Another	 ?example	 ?of	 ? the	 ?difference	 ? in	 ?planning	 ? is	 ? that,	 ? ?in	 ?advance	 ?of	 ?any	 ?new	 ?facility	 ?being	 ?built,	 ?looking	 ?at,	 ??	 ?where	 ?is	 ?it	 ?being	 ?sited	 ?and	 ?are	 ?there	 ?any	 ?unique	 ?opportunities	 ?for	 ?that	 ?particular	 ?site	 ?that	 ?that	 ?building	 ?can	 ?take	 ?advantage	 ?of,	 ?from	 ?a	 ?heat-??sink,	 ?heat-??	 ? 112	 ?source	 ?standpoint	 ??	 ?that	 ?kind	 ?of	 ?conversation	 ?happen	 ?early	 ?on	 ?in	 ?the	 ?planning	 ?stage	 ?of	 ?any	 ?new	 ?building,	 ?it's	 ?something	 ?that	 ?is	 ?done	 ?now,	 ?that	 ?wasn't	 ?done	 ?before.?	 ?	 ?When	 ? asked	 ? whether	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate	 ? would	 ? discourage	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ?that	 ?would	 ?drastically	 ?increase	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?interviewees	 ?agree	 ?that	 ?these	 ??don?t	 ?really	 ? factor	 ? in	 ? into	 ? decisions	 ? around	 ? expansion	 ? of	 ? infrastructure	 ? to	 ? support	 ?learning	 ?or	 ?research?.	 ?For	 ?instance,	 ??We	 ?would	 ?never	 ?make	 ?a	 ?decision	 ?not	 ?to	 ?build	 ?a	 ?student	 ?residence	 ?or	 ?an	 ?academic	 ?building	 ?because	 ?it	 ?was	 ?going	 ?to	 ?push	 ?up	 ?our	 ?GHG,	 ?we	 ?will	 ?never	 ?do	 ?that.	 ?We	 ?will	 ?just	 ?try	 ?to	 ?build	 ?it	 ?as	 ?efficiently	 ?as	 ?we	 ?can.?	 ?	 ?An	 ?example,	 ?provided	 ?by	 ?one	 ?of	 ? the	 ? interviewees,	 ?of	 ?a	 ?perverse	 ? impact	 ?of	 ? the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ? is	 ? the	 ? case	 ? of	 ? a	 ? co-??generation	 ? plant	 ? on	 ? campus.	 ? From	 ? an	 ? economic	 ?standpoint,	 ? a	 ? natural	 ? gas	 ? co-??generation	 ? plant	 ? would	 ? burn	 ? more	 ? natural	 ? gas,	 ?increasing	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? footprint	 ? and	 ? incur	 ? higher	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? and	 ? carbon	 ? offsets.	 ?Moreover,	 ?the	 ?electricity	 ?produced	 ?by	 ?a	 ?co-??generation	 ?plant	 ?can	 ?already	 ?be	 ?provided	 ?inexpensively	 ?by	 ?BC	 ?Hydro.	 ?However,	 ?putting	 ?aside	 ? the	 ?uniqueness	 ?of	 ?being	 ? in	 ? the	 ?province	 ?of	 ?BC,	 ?where	 ?hydro-??electricity	 ? is	 ? cheap	 ?and	 ? relatively	 ?GHG-??free,	 ? it	 ?would	 ?make	 ?sense	 ?scientifically	 ? to	 ?have	 ?a	 ?co-??generation	 ?plant	 ?on	 ?campus	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?both	 ?thermal	 ? and	 ? electrical	 ? energy	 ? at	 ? higher	 ? efficiency.	 ? This	 ? example,	 ? according	 ? to	 ? the	 ?interviewee,	 ? indicates	 ? that	 ? the	 ? existing	 ? policies	 ? are	 ? actually	 ? working	 ? against	 ? the	 ?right	 ?decision.	 ?	 ?	 ?As	 ? for	 ? the	 ? budget	 ? or	 ? account	 ? from	 ?which	 ? carbon	 ? offsets	 ? and	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? are	 ? paid,	 ?most	 ? of	 ? these	 ? are	 ? paid	 ? by	 ? UBC	 ? Building	 ? Operations	 ? and	 ? SFU	 ? Facilities	 ? Services.	 ?Carbon	 ?tax	 ?is	 ?paid	 ?by	 ?users	 ?directly,	 ?either	 ?at	 ?the	 ?pumps	 ?or	 ?via	 ?the	 ?utilities	 ?accounts,	 ?whereas	 ? carbon	 ? offsets	 ? are	 ? paid	 ? centrally	 ? by	 ? the	 ? operational	 ? departments	 ? (i.e.	 ?Building	 ? Operations	 ? and	 ? Facilities	 ? Services)	 ? from	 ? their	 ? operational	 ? budgets.	 ? Both	 ?UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU	 ? also	 ? appear	 ? to	 ? treat	 ? both	 ? of	 ? these	 ? as	 ? part	 ? of	 ? the	 ? total	 ? costs	 ? of	 ? their	 ?	 ? 113	 ?operations	 ?or	 ?projects,	 ?and	 ?do	 ?not	 ?adopt	 ?a	 ?different	 ?approach	 ?or	 ?strategic	 ?response	 ?to	 ?each.	 ?	 ?	 ?Most	 ?interviewees	 ?from	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?do	 ?not	 ?believe	 ?that	 ?the	 ?requirement	 ?for	 ?annual	 ?public	 ?reports	 ?of	 ?actions	 ?taken	 ?has	 ?an	 ?influence	 ?on	 ?their	 ?organization?s	 ?response	 ?to	 ?the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate,	 ? except	 ? for	 ? one	 ? interviewee	 ? who	 ? has	 ? observed	 ? that	 ? certain	 ?operational	 ? departments	 ? do	 ? take	 ? these	 ? reports	 ? very	 ? seriously,	 ? with	 ? the	 ? head	 ? of	 ?department	 ?personally	 ?reviewing	 ?the	 ?contents	 ?of	 ?these	 ?reports.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?5.5	 ? Major	 ?Constraints	 ?Interviewees	 ?were	 ? then	 ?asked	 ? to	 ? list	 ? the	 ?major	 ? constraints	 ?holding	 ?back	 ?decisions	 ?on	 ?emissions	 ?reduction	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects,	 ?and	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?and	 ?related	 ? programmes	 ? have	 ? changed	 ? any	 ? of	 ? these	 ? constraints.	 ? In	 ? particular,	 ?interviewees	 ?were	 ?asked	 ?whether	 ?the	 ?payment	 ?for	 ?carbon	 ?offsets	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?has	 ?been	 ?at	 ?the	 ?expense	 ?of	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?or	 ?other	 ?core	 ?operations.	 ?	 ?All	 ? interviewees	 ?cited	 ?availability	 ?of	 ? funding	 ?or	 ?access	 ? to	 ? capital	 ? for	 ? infrastructure	 ?projects	 ? as	 ? the	 ? major	 ? constraint.	 ? Within	 ? this	 ? is	 ? the	 ? limited	 ? capacity	 ? of	 ? public	 ?organizations	 ? to	 ? take	 ? on	 ? additional	 ? debt	 ? through	 ? external	 ? borrowing.	 ? Several	 ?interviewees	 ?attributed	 ?this	 ?to	 ?the	 ?rule	 ?change	 ?that	 ?the	 ?provincial	 ?government	 ?has	 ?brought	 ? about,	 ? which	 ? included	 ? debt	 ? from	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? within	 ? the	 ?overall	 ?provincial	 ?debt	 ?ceiling,	 ?such	 ?that	 ?these	 ?institutions	 ?are	 ?not	 ?allowed	 ?to	 ?take	 ?on	 ?additional	 ? debt	 ? unless	 ? approved	 ? by	 ? the	 ? provincial	 ? government.	 ?Without	 ? access	 ? to	 ?external	 ?funding,	 ?these	 ?organizations	 ?are	 ?limited	 ?to	 ?pursue	 ?only	 ?those	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ? that	 ? they	 ? can	 ? fund	 ? internally	 ? or	 ? from	 ? donations.	 ? These	 ? infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?have	 ?to	 ?compete	 ?against	 ?other	 ?university	 ?priorities	 ?to	 ?gain	 ?internal	 ?capital	 ?funding.	 ? In	 ?particular,	 ?SFU	 ?cited	 ? this	 ?as	 ?one	 ?of	 ? the	 ?main	 ? factors	 ?holding	 ?back	 ? their	 ?decision	 ?on	 ?the	 ?proposed	 ?biomass	 ?plant,	 ?despite	 ?the	 ?promise	 ?of	 ?about	 ?$4.7	 ?million	 ?	 ? 114	 ?from	 ? PSECA	 ? if	 ? they	 ? proceeded	 ? with	 ? this	 ? project.	 ? Nonetheless,	 ? there	 ? are	 ? recent	 ?indications	 ?that	 ?SFU	 ?may	 ?be	 ?prepared	 ?to	 ?move	 ?ahead	 ?to	 ?explore	 ?this	 ?project	 ?further,	 ?subject	 ? to	 ? the	 ? government?s	 ? approval	 ? for	 ? it	 ? to	 ? take	 ?on	 ? the	 ? additional	 ? debt.	 ?On	 ? the	 ?other	 ?hand,	 ?UBC,	 ?which	 ?has	 ?a	 ?larger	 ?pool	 ?of	 ?working	 ?capital	 ?and	 ?Board	 ?endorsement	 ?to	 ? pursue	 ? aggressive	 ? emissions	 ? reduction	 ? targets,	 ? has	 ?managed	 ? to	 ? go	 ? ahead	 ?with	 ?several	 ?large	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?will	 ?drastically	 ?reduce	 ?emissions,	 ?without	 ?hitting	 ?its	 ?debt	 ?ceiling.	 ?	 ?	 ?Another	 ?major	 ? constraint	 ? cited	 ? by	 ? some	 ? interviewees	 ? is	 ? low	 ? energy	 ? prices	 ? in	 ? the	 ?province,	 ? which	 ? makes	 ? it	 ? harder	 ? to	 ? build	 ? up	 ? a	 ? business	 ? case	 ? for	 ? infrastructure	 ?projects	 ? that	 ? depend	 ? on	 ? energy	 ? savings.	 ? In	 ? this	 ? regard,	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? and	 ?requirement	 ? to	 ? purchase	 ? carbon	 ? offsets	 ? has	 ? been	 ? a	 ? great	 ? help	 ? to	 ? some	 ? projects,	 ?assuming	 ? that	 ? the	 ? policy	 ? of	 ? carbon	 ? pricing	 ? remains	 ? in	 ? place	 ? over	 ? the	 ? life	 ? of	 ? the	 ?project.	 ? Conversely,	 ? the	 ? recent	 ? announcement	 ? by	 ? the	 ? BC	 ? Liberal	 ? Government	 ? to	 ?freeze	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? rates	 ? for	 ? the	 ? next	 ? 5	 ? years	 ? (?flattening	 ? of	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? pricing	 ?regime?)	 ?is	 ?not	 ?helping	 ?to	 ?encourage	 ?more	 ?such	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?	 ?SFU	 ? interviewees	 ? also	 ? point	 ? to	 ? the	 ? lack	 ? of	 ? options	 ? in	 ? their	 ? case,	 ? since	 ? they	 ? have	 ?already	 ? ?picked	 ? the	 ? low-??hanging	 ? fruits?	 ?and	 ? the	 ? ?carbon	 ?output	 ? for	 ? the	 ? size	 ?of	 ?our	 ?campus,	 ?and	 ? for	 ? the	 ? intensity	 ?of	 ?use	 ?of	 ?our	 ?campus,	 ? is	 ?pretty	 ?small	 ? to	 ?begin	 ?with.?	 ?About	 ? 80%	 ? of	 ? their	 ? current	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? come	 ? from	 ? heating	 ? and	 ? the	 ? primary	 ?source	 ? for	 ?heating	 ? is	 ?natural	 ? gas.	 ?As	 ? such,	 ? for	 ? SFU	 ? to	 ?make	 ?any	 ? significant	 ?dent	 ? in	 ?their	 ?carbon	 ?output,	 ?the	 ?only	 ?two	 ?options	 ?are	 ? looking	 ?at	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?heat	 ?or	 ?the	 ?fuel	 ?source.	 ?The	 ?primary	 ?way	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?the	 ?quantity	 ?of	 ?heat	 ?is	 ?by	 ?improving	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?incrementally,	 ?which	 ?in	 ?SFU?s	 ?case	 ?takes	 ?huge	 ?investment	 ?but	 ?gives	 ?small	 ?returns.	 ?Another	 ?way	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?the	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?heat	 ?is	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?the	 ?temperature	 ?but	 ??you	 ? can	 ? only	 ? turn	 ? the	 ? temperature	 ? down	 ? so	 ? much	 ? before	 ? ?	 ? it	 ? just	 ? becomes	 ?unreasonable.?	 ?Hence	 ? the	 ?other	 ?option	 ? is	 ? look	 ?at	 ? the	 ? source	 ?of	 ? fuel	 ? for	 ? the	 ? central	 ?	 ? 115	 ?heating	 ? plant.	 ? But	 ? this	 ?will	 ? cost	 ? even	 ?more	 ?money,	 ?which	 ? the	 ?University	 ? does	 ? not	 ?currently	 ?have.	 ?	 ?Other	 ?constraints	 ? cited	 ? include	 ? technology	 ? risks,	 ? complexities	 ?and	 ?uncertainties	 ? in	 ?the	 ?regulatory	 ?regime	 ?for	 ?district	 ?energy,	 ?and	 ??other	 ?practical	 ?and	 ?pragmatic	 ?issues	 ?that	 ?are	 ?part	 ?of	 ??	 ?the	 ?implementation?.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ?general,	 ?more	 ?of	 ?the	 ?interviewees	 ?are	 ?of	 ?the	 ?view	 ?that	 ?the	 ?payment	 ?for	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?offsets	 ?means	 ?less	 ?money	 ?for	 ?emission	 ?reduction	 ?activities	 ?and	 ?projects,	 ?less	 ? utility	 ? or	 ? building	 ?maintenance	 ? or	 ? any	 ? other	 ? programmes	 ? or	 ? activities	 ? of	 ? the	 ?organizations.	 ? However,	 ? they	 ? are	 ? not	 ? able	 ? to	 ? specify	 ? which	 ? of	 ? these	 ? areas	 ? are	 ?affected	 ? since	 ? they	 ? are	 ? all	 ? part	 ? of	 ? the	 ? operational	 ? budget.	 ? Almost	 ? all	 ? of	 ? the	 ? SFU	 ?interviewees	 ?believe	 ?that	 ?while	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?programme	 ?applies	 ?regulatory	 ?pressure	 ?to	 ?act	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? emissions,	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? offsets	 ? are	 ? taking	 ? a	 ? lot	 ? of	 ? money	 ? out	 ? of	 ? the	 ?institution,	 ?which	 ?makes	 ?it	 ?harder	 ?because	 ?they	 ?could	 ?have	 ?invested	 ?these	 ?instead	 ?in	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?or	 ?other	 ?things	 ?that	 ?would	 ?reduce	 ?their	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?5.6	 ? Resources	 ?and	 ?Support	 ?Mechanisms	 ?The	 ? next	 ? set	 ? of	 ? questions	 ? focused	 ? on	 ? the	 ? availability	 ? of	 ? resources	 ? to	 ? fund	 ?infrastructure	 ? projects.	 ? These	 ? include	 ? possible	 ? re-??direction	 ? of	 ? internal	 ? funds,	 ? new	 ?sources	 ? of	 ? external	 ? funding	 ? and	 ? potential	 ? savings	 ? generated	 ? by	 ? these	 ? projects.	 ?Another	 ?series	 ?of	 ?questions	 ?were	 ?directed	 ?at	 ?the	 ?level	 ?of	 ?staffing	 ?or	 ?expertise	 ?related	 ?to	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?accounting,	 ?monitoring	 ?and	 ?reduction,	 ?including	 ?the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?faculty	 ?or	 ?research	 ?expertise	 ?within	 ?the	 ?organizations.	 ?Interviewees	 ?were	 ?also	 ?asked	 ?which	 ?support	 ?mechanisms	 ?provided	 ?by	 ?the	 ?Provincial	 ?Government	 ?or	 ?other	 ?government	 ?agencies	 ? were	 ? most	 ? helpful	 ? to	 ? their	 ? organization	 ? and	 ? what	 ? other	 ? support	 ?mechanisms	 ? they	 ? think	 ?would	 ?help	 ? their	 ?organization	 ? to	 ? implement	 ? infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?would	 ?drastically	 ?reduce	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ? 116	 ?UBC	 ?was	 ?not	 ? successful	 ? in	 ? its	 ? application	 ? for	 ?PSECA	 ?grants,	 ?but	 ? it	 ?has	 ?managed	 ? to	 ?secure	 ? significant	 ? funding	 ? from	 ?government	 ? agencies,	 ? including	 ? federal	 ? grants,	 ? for	 ?its	 ?BRDF	 ?project	 ?primarily	 ?because	 ?of	 ?the	 ?research	 ?component.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?UBC	 ?only	 ?had	 ?to	 ?put	 ?up	 ?about	 ?one	 ?third	 ?of	 ?the	 ?capital	 ?for	 ?this	 ?project.	 ?UBC	 ?also	 ?partnered	 ?with	 ?private	 ? sector	 ? partners	 ? Nexterra	 ? and	 ? General	 ? Electric	 ? in	 ? the	 ? BRDF	 ? project,	 ? an	 ?opportunity	 ? that	 ? has	 ? ?opened	 ? up	 ? with	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? mandate?.	 ? Other	 ? possible	 ? new	 ?funding	 ?opportunities	 ? involving	 ?industry	 ?partnership	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?are	 ?being	 ?explored	 ?with	 ?Industry	 ?Canada	 ?and	 ?NRCan.	 ?	 ?UBC	 ? has	 ? benefited	 ? from	 ? smaller	 ? funding	 ? from	 ?BC	 ?Hydro	 ? and	 ? FortisBC	 ? for	 ? various	 ?projects,	 ? as	 ? well	 ? as	 ? partial	 ? funding	 ? for	 ? their	 ? community	 ? energy	 ? manager	 ? and	 ? an	 ?energy	 ? specialist	 ? who	 ? does	 ? the	 ? GHG	 ? accounting.	 ? On	 ? its	 ? own,	 ? Building	 ? Operations	 ?have	 ?been	 ?building	 ?expertise	 ?around	 ?energy	 ?conservation,	 ?and	 ??there	 ?has	 ?probably	 ?been	 ?quite	 ?significant	 ? increase	 ? in	 ? the	 ?number	 ?of	 ?kind	 ?of	 ?professionals	 ?at	 ?UBC	 ?who	 ?have	 ?a	 ?mandate	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?the	 ?University?s	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.?	 ?	 ?The	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?was	 ?the	 ? driver	 ? around	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? accounting,	 ? leading	 ? to	 ? UBC	 ? becoming	 ? more	 ?sophisticated	 ?regarding	 ?energy	 ?use	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?Furthermore,	 ?UBC	 ?has	 ?taken	 ?the	 ? opportunity	 ? to	 ? partner	 ? with	 ? researchers	 ? on	 ? campus,	 ? particularly	 ? from	 ? the	 ?Sauder	 ?School	 ?of	 ?Business	 ?and	 ? the	 ?Clean	 ?Energy	 ?Research	 ?Centre,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?hired	 ?students	 ?from	 ?these	 ?programmes	 ?to	 ?help.	 ?A	 ?recent	 ?graduate	 ?from	 ?the	 ?Clean	 ?Energy	 ?Research	 ?Centre	 ?now	 ?works	 ?for	 ?Building	 ?Operations.	 ?	 ?	 ?SFU	 ?interviewees	 ?highlighted	 ?that	 ??if	 ?government	 ?really	 ?wants	 ?to	 ?get	 ?serious	 ?about	 ?reducing	 ? emissions,	 ? they	 ? have	 ? to	 ? invest	 ? money	 ? in	 ? reducing	 ? emissions?	 ? and	 ??infrastructure	 ? grants	 ? that	 ?were	 ? specific	 ? to	 ? carbon	 ? reduction,	 ? that	 ?would	 ? be	 ? a	 ? big	 ?help?.	 ?SFU	 ?has	 ?applied	 ? for	 ?a	 ?PSECA	 ?grant	 ? for	 ? the	 ?proposed	 ?biomass	 ?plant	 ?and	 ?$4.7	 ?million	 ? were	 ? approved	 ? towards	 ? the	 ? plant.	 ? This	 ? grant	 ? helps	 ? bolster	 ? the	 ? biomass	 ?option	 ?but	 ?SFU	 ?has	 ?yet	 ? to	 ?decide	 ?whether	 ? to	 ?proceed	 ?with	 ? the	 ?project.	 ?SFU	 ? is	 ?also	 ?considering	 ?setting	 ?aside	 ?savings	 ? into	 ?a	 ?resolving	 ? fund,	 ? in	 ? the	 ?region	 ?of	 ?$5	 ?million,	 ?	 ? 117	 ?which	 ? they	 ?can	 ? tap	 ? into	 ? for	 ? smaller	 ?projects	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? their	 ?energy	 ?consumption3.	 ?The	 ? Facilities	 ? Service	 ? Department	 ? had,	 ? in	 ? the	 ? past,	 ? borrowed	 ? about	 ? $5	 ? million	 ?internally	 ?for	 ?their	 ?lighting	 ?retrofit	 ?project,	 ?which	 ?they	 ?have	 ?been	 ?repaying	 ?over	 ?the	 ?years.	 ?	 ?	 ?Regarding	 ? expertise,	 ? SFU	 ? has	 ? hired	 ? one	 ? full-??time	 ? sustainability	 ? coordinator.	 ? BC	 ?Hydro	 ? also	 ? provides	 ? funding	 ? for	 ? energy	 ? specialists.	 ? Other	 ? than	 ? that,	 ? the	 ? extra	 ?workload	 ?has	 ?been	 ?absorbed	 ?within	 ?the	 ?existing	 ?staff	 ?levels.	 ?SFU	 ?has	 ?not	 ?been	 ?able	 ?to	 ?get	 ?the	 ?academic	 ?side	 ?involved	 ?as	 ?much	 ?as	 ?they	 ?could	 ?have.	 ?	 ?	 ?As	 ?for	 ?other	 ?support	 ?mechanisms	 ?that	 ?might	 ?be	 ?helpful,	 ?interviewees	 ?suggested	 ?that	 ?more	 ? grants	 ? for	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects,	 ? like	 ? the	 ? PSECA	 ? grants,	 ? would	 ? be	 ? helpful.	 ?They	 ? also	 ? suggested	 ? that	 ? the	 ? province	 ? should	 ? provide	 ? leadership	 ? in	 ? low-??carbon	 ?generation,	 ? in	 ? terms	 ? of	 ? driving	 ? down	 ? the	 ? costs,	 ? sorting	 ? out	 ? the	 ? legal	 ? issues	 ? and	 ?undertaking	 ?public	 ?education.	 ?Moreover,	 ? it	 ?would	 ?be	 ?helpful	 ? if	 ? the	 ?province	 ?or	 ? the	 ?BC	 ? Utilities	 ? Commission	 ? could	 ? clarify	 ? the	 ? regulatory	 ? environment	 ? around	 ? district	 ?energy	 ?systems.	 ?	 ?	 ?5.7	 ? Innovations	 ?and	 ?Learning	 ?The	 ?last	 ?set	 ?of	 ?questions	 ?aimed	 ?to	 ?find	 ?out	 ?what	 ?major	 ?innovations	 ?the	 ?organizations	 ?have	 ? made	 ? in	 ? climate	 ? change	 ? action,	 ? and	 ? if	 ? these	 ? were	 ? motivated	 ? by	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate.	 ? Interviewees	 ?were	 ? asked	 ? to	 ? describe	 ?how	 ? their	 ? organization	 ?has	 ? tapped	 ?expertise	 ?from	 ?other	 ?PSOs	 ?or	 ?shared	 ?lessons	 ?learnt	 ?with	 ?other	 ?organizations.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?3	 ?SFU	 ?has	 ?just	 ?set	 ?up	 ?the	 ?Sustainable	 ?Utilities	 ?Revolving	 ?Fund	 ?(SURF),	 ?which	 ?is	 ?a	 ?fund	 ?that	 ? supports	 ? energy	 ? and	 ?water	 ? initiatives	 ? that	 ? generate	 ? cost	 ? savings.	 ? SURF	 ? is	 ? a	 ?self-??replenishing	 ?fund	 ?where	 ?cost	 ?savings	 ?are	 ?measured	 ?and	 ?used	 ?to	 ?replenish	 ?the	 ?fund	 ? for	 ? the	 ? next	 ? round	 ? of	 ? investments.	 ? For	 ? more	 ? details,	 ? see	 ?http://www.sfu.ca/fs/Green-??Services/SURF/Default.html.	 ?	 ?	 ? 118	 ?To	 ?most	 ?of	 ?the	 ?UBC	 ?interviewees,	 ?the	 ?biggest	 ?innovation	 ?is	 ?the	 ?so-??called	 ??Campus	 ?as	 ?a	 ? Living	 ? Lab?	 ? concept.	 ? This	 ? arises	 ? from	 ? the	 ? recognition	 ? that	 ? the	 ? UBC	 ? Vancouver	 ?Campus	 ?is	 ?in	 ?a	 ?very	 ?unique	 ?position,	 ?because	 ?UBC	 ?owns	 ?all	 ?the	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?all	 ?the	 ?land,	 ?so	 ?they	 ?can	 ?try	 ?things	 ?out	 ?on	 ?the	 ?campus,	 ?which	 ?can	 ?then	 ?be	 ?applied	 ?elsewhere.	 ?It	 ? is	 ? a	 ?major	 ? effort	 ? to	 ? integrate	 ? the	 ? academic	 ? and	 ? research	 ?areas	 ? that	 ?have	 ?world-??leading	 ?experts	 ? in	 ?particular	 ?areas,	 ?with	 ? the	 ?operational	 ?needs	 ?on	 ?campus	 ?such	 ?as	 ?producing	 ?heat	 ?or	 ?producing	 ?electricity,	 ?plus	 ?third	 ?party	 ?companies	 ?that	 ?is	 ?trying	 ?to	 ?commercialize	 ? or	 ? demonstrate	 ? a	 ? new	 ? system	 ? or	 ? technology.	 ? This	 ? has	 ? begun	 ? to	 ?transform	 ?the	 ?way	 ?operational	 ?department	 ?work	 ?and	 ?collaborate	 ?with	 ?researchers,	 ?as	 ? they	 ?work	 ? closely	 ? to	 ? solve	 ? operational	 ? problems.	 ? In	 ? this	 ?way,	 ? ?the	 ? operational	 ?side	 ?becomes	 ?part	 ?of	 ? an	 ?academic	 ?agenda,	 ?which	 ? raises	 ? its	 ?profile	 ? and	 ? its	 ? stature?	 ?and	 ?in	 ?turn,	 ?boosts	 ?operational	 ?staff	 ?morale.	 ?	 ?	 ?Another	 ?major	 ?innovation	 ?cited	 ?by	 ?interviewees	 ?is	 ?the	 ?way	 ?the	 ?University	 ?has	 ?gone	 ?about	 ?engaging	 ?its	 ?stakeholders,	 ?particularly	 ?students	 ?and	 ?residents.	 ?By	 ?setting	 ?very	 ?stringent	 ? emission	 ? standards	 ?and	 ? setting	 ?up	 ?a	 ?monitoring	 ? system	 ? to	 ?address	 ? their	 ?concerns,	 ?UBC	 ?was	 ?able	 ?to	 ?gain	 ?acceptance	 ?and	 ?support	 ?for	 ?the	 ?BRDF,	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?wider	 ?agenda	 ?for	 ?GHG	 ?reduction	 ?and	 ?energy	 ?use	 ?reduction	 ?in	 ?UBC.	 ?	 ?	 ?Although	 ? it	 ?was	 ?being	 ?planned	 ?before	 ? the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ? the	 ?new	 ?CIRS	 ?building	 ?at	 ?UBC,	 ?one	 ?of	 ?North	 ?America?s	 ?most	 ?sustainable	 ?buildings,	 ?has	 ??set	 ?a	 ?high	 ?standard	 ?for	 ?building	 ? systems	 ? and	 ? what	 ? we	 ? can	 ? potentially	 ? incorporate	 ? into	 ? future	 ?developments.?	 ? It	 ? has	 ? helped	 ? pioneer	 ? some	 ? new	 ? planning	 ? and	 ? design	 ? processes,	 ?such	 ? as	 ? the	 ? integrated	 ? design	 ? process,	 ? which	 ? are	 ? now	 ? embedded	 ? in	 ? the	 ? technical	 ?guidelines	 ? and	 ? become	 ? a	 ? standard	 ? requirement	 ? at	 ? UBC.	 ? One	 ? interviewee	 ? also	 ?observed	 ?that	 ?leveraging	 ?on	 ?the	 ?experience	 ?with	 ?energy	 ?transfer	 ?between	 ?CIRS	 ?and	 ?its	 ? neighbouring	 ? building,	 ? ?there	 ? has	 ? been	 ? a	 ? shift	 ? to	 ? a	 ? much	 ? more	 ? integrated	 ?thinking	 ?around	 ?energy	 ?usage	 ?and	 ?thinking	 ?about	 ?it	 ?on	 ?a	 ? large	 ?campus-??wide	 ?scale?	 ?	 ? 119	 ?rather	 ?than	 ?on	 ?a	 ?building	 ?scale4,	 ?utilizing	 ?the	 ?hot	 ?water	 ?district	 ?energy	 ?system	 ?that	 ?is	 ?being	 ?put	 ?in	 ?place.	 ?	 ?Feedback	 ? from	 ?SFU	 ? interviewees	 ? indicates	 ? that	 ? they	 ?do	 ?not	 ? consider	 ? their	 ? climate	 ?actions	 ? to	 ? be	 ? particularly	 ? innovative,	 ? as	 ? they	 ? have	 ? adopted	 ? what	 ? is	 ? tested	 ? and	 ?commonly	 ?available	 ?in	 ?the	 ?industry.	 ?	 ?	 ?Both	 ? UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU	 ? have	 ? looked	 ? at	 ? the	 ? experiences	 ? of	 ? other	 ? post-??secondary	 ?institutions	 ?outside	 ?of	 ?BC.	 ?For	 ?example,	 ?UBC	 ?looked	 ?at	 ?University	 ?of	 ?California	 ?Irvine	 ?and	 ?University	 ?of	 ?Washington	 ?for	 ?their	 ?experience	 ?on	 ?green	 ?laboratories,	 ?while	 ?SFU	 ?has	 ?studied	 ?the	 ?experiences	 ?of	 ?UBC,	 ?UNBC	 ?and	 ?Dockside	 ?Green	 ?(in	 ?Victoria,	 ?BC)	 ?with	 ?biomass	 ? plants.	 ? The	 ? American	 ? Association	 ? for	 ? Sustainability	 ? in	 ? Higher	 ? Education	 ?(AASHE)	 ? group	 ?has	 ? also	 ? been	 ? cited	 ? as	 ? a	 ? good	 ? resource	 ? for	 ? sustainability,	 ? both	 ? for	 ?planning	 ? policy	 ? and	 ? projects.	 ? This	 ? is	 ? usually	 ? where	 ? a	 ? lot	 ? of	 ? higher	 ? education	 ?institutions	 ?go	 ?to	 ?share	 ?their	 ?experiences.	 ?	 ?	 ?Within	 ? BC,	 ? one	 ? forum	 ? is	 ? the	 ? Climate	 ? Action	 ? Secretariat	 ? Advisory	 ? Committee,	 ?comprising	 ?representatives	 ?from	 ?the	 ?various	 ?sectors	 ?like	 ?health	 ?authorities,	 ?schools	 ?districts	 ?and	 ?post-??secondary	 ?education.	 ?This	 ?is	 ?a	 ?forum	 ?for	 ?information	 ?sharing	 ?and	 ?inputs	 ?about	 ?PSO	 ?concerns.	 ?Both	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?have	 ?also	 ?benefitted	 ?from	 ?BC	 ?Hydro?s	 ?energy	 ?manager	 ?or	 ?energy	 ?specialist	 ?programme,	 ?where	 ? they	 ?have	 ? tried	 ? to	 ?build	 ?a	 ?community	 ?around	 ?these	 ?professionals	 ?via	 ?regular	 ?conferences,	 ?meetings	 ?and	 ?online	 ?tools	 ?for	 ?sharing	 ?best	 ?practices.	 ?Beyond	 ?that,	 ?it	 ?appears	 ?that	 ?there	 ?is	 ?little	 ?structured	 ?sharing	 ?among	 ?post-??secondary	 ?institutions;	 ?rather	 ?they	 ?tend	 ?to	 ?be	 ?on	 ?a	 ?one-??on-??one	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?4	 ?A	 ? review	 ? of	 ? the	 ? actual	 ? performance	 ? of	 ? energy	 ? transfer	 ? between	 ? CIRS	 ? and	 ? its	 ?neighbouring	 ? building	 ? during	 ? the	 ? early	 ? stages	 ? of	 ? its	 ? operation	 ? shows	 ? that	 ? it	 ? has	 ?fallen	 ? far	 ? short	 ? of	 ? its	 ? performance	 ? goals	 ? and	 ? intended	 ? system	 ? functioning.	 ? The	 ?design	 ?process	 ?was	 ?also	 ?fundamentally	 ?flawed,	 ?and	 ?many	 ?improvements	 ?could	 ?be	 ?made	 ? along	 ? the	 ? entire	 ? lifecycle	 ? of	 ? the	 ? building,	 ? from	 ? design	 ? through	 ? operations.	 ?These	 ?lessons	 ?learnt	 ?are	 ?being	 ?applied	 ?to	 ?future	 ?developments.	 ?	 ?	 ? 120	 ?basis	 ? between	 ? operational	 ? staff	 ? or	 ? academics	 ? with	 ? common	 ? research	 ? interests.	 ?Interviewees	 ?noted	 ?that	 ?the	 ?institutions	 ?have	 ?very	 ?different	 ?scales	 ?of	 ?operation	 ?and	 ?access	 ? to	 ? resources	 ? internally,	 ? so	 ? what	 ? works	 ? for	 ? one	 ? may	 ? not	 ? be	 ? applicable	 ? to	 ?others.	 ?Similarly,	 ?there	 ?tends	 ?to	 ?be	 ?more	 ?interaction	 ?across	 ?sectors,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?between	 ?post-??secondary	 ?and	 ?health	 ? authorities	 ?of	 ? similar	 ? sizes,	 ? or	 ?between	 ?post-??secondary	 ?institutions	 ? and	 ? municipalities	 ? with	 ? similar	 ? circumstances	 ? or	 ? opportunities	 ? for	 ?collaboration.	 ?An	 ?example	 ? is	 ? the	 ?series	 ?of	 ?workshops	 ?on	 ?district	 ?energy,	 ?hosted	 ?by	 ?UBC	 ?with	 ?municipalities	 ?and	 ?the	 ?regional	 ?district	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Lower	 ?Mainland.	 ?	 ?	 ?Through	 ? the	 ? USI,	 ? UBC	 ? also	 ? taps	 ? expertise	 ? from	 ? an	 ? advisory	 ? group	 ? that	 ? draws	 ? on	 ?experts	 ?from	 ?around	 ?the	 ?province,	 ?from	 ?other	 ?agencies	 ?and	 ?representatives	 ?from	 ?the	 ?Fraser	 ? Basin,	 ? the	 ? Vancouver	 ? Airport	 ? Authority,	 ? from	 ? a	 ? range	 ? of	 ? different	 ?environmental	 ? groups,	 ? David	 ? Suzuki	 ? Foundation,	 ? and	 ? the	 ? Pacific	 ? Institute	 ? for	 ?Climate	 ?Solutions	 ?(PICS).	 ?	 ?Generally,	 ?interviewees	 ?are	 ?of	 ?the	 ?view	 ?that	 ?since	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ?there	 ?has	 ?been	 ?increased	 ? know-??how	 ? in	 ? GHG	 ? reduction	 ? within	 ? their	 ? organization,	 ? although	 ? there	 ?was	 ? a	 ? learning	 ? phase	 ? at	 ? the	 ? beginning	 ?where	 ? some	 ? struggled	 ? to	 ? understand	 ?what	 ?they	 ?were	 ?required	 ?to	 ?do	 ?and	 ?report.	 ?In	 ?the	 ?case	 ?of	 ?UBC,	 ?the	 ?implementation	 ?of	 ?large	 ?and	 ?complex	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?has	 ?called	 ?for	 ?a	 ?major	 ?training	 ? initiative	 ? for	 ? operational	 ? staff	 ? to	 ? prepare	 ? them	 ? to	 ? operate	 ? the	 ? new	 ?equipment	 ?and	 ?control	 ?systems.	 ?Several	 ?interviewees	 ?also	 ?noticed	 ?an	 ?increase	 ?in	 ?the	 ?number	 ?of	 ?private	 ?firms	 ?and	 ?consultancies	 ?doing	 ?energy	 ?planning	 ?and	 ?analysis	 ?work,	 ?and	 ?that	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ??has	 ?had	 ?a	 ?huge	 ?impact	 ?to	 ?stimulate	 ?the	 ?local	 ?knowledge	 ?base.?	 ?	 ?	 ? 121	 ?5.8	 ? Others	 ?Finally,	 ? the	 ? interviewees	 ? were	 ? asked	 ? to	 ? mention	 ? anything	 ? else	 ? that	 ? they	 ? thought	 ?were	 ? relevant	 ? to	 ? the	 ? topic,	 ? and	 ? any	 ? other	 ? personal	 ? opinion	 ? or	 ? other	 ? perspectives	 ?they	 ?would	 ?like	 ?to	 ?share.	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ? general,	 ? UBC?s	 ? enthusiasm	 ? for	 ? CNG	 ? and	 ? GHG	 ? reduction	 ? is	 ? reflected	 ? in	 ? the	 ?following	 ?quote:	 ??I	 ?think	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?has	 ?absolutely	 ?been	 ?a	 ?leader	 ?in	 ?what	 ?it?s	 ?done	 ?in	 ?taking	 ?a	 ?position	 ? with	 ? regards	 ? to	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? and	 ? carbon	 ? neutrality.	 ? UBC,	 ? through	 ? its	 ?President	 ?and	 ?its	 ?executives,	 ?its	 ?Board,	 ?has	 ?also	 ?taken	 ?a	 ?leadership	 ?position	 ?in	 ?taking	 ?on	 ?projects	 ? and	 ?doing	 ? things	 ? that	 ? typically	 ?would	 ?not	 ? have	 ?been	 ?done,	 ? if	 ? it	 ? hadn?t	 ?been	 ?for	 ?the	 ?mindset	 ?that	 ?has	 ?been	 ?created	 ?in	 ?the	 ?province	 ?and	 ?the	 ?focus.?	 ?	 ?However,	 ? several	 ? interviewees	 ? from	 ? both	 ? UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU	 ? commented	 ? on	 ? the	 ? large	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?work	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?preparing	 ?the	 ?annual	 ?reports	 ?(CNAR)	 ?and	 ?collation	 ?and	 ?data	 ? entry	 ? for	 ? SMARTTool	 ? in	 ? the	 ? initial	 ? submissions.	 ? Some	 ? also	 ? suggested	 ? that	 ?instead	 ?of	 ?channeling	 ?the	 ?offset	 ?moneys	 ?to	 ?the	 ?private	 ?sector,	 ?they	 ?should	 ?be	 ?made	 ?available	 ? to	 ? PSOs	 ? for	 ? emission	 ? reduction	 ? projects	 ? or	 ? research.	 ? One	 ? interviewee	 ?opined	 ? that	 ? the	 ? key	 ? issue	 ? is	 ? to	 ? encourage	 ? innovation,	 ? particularly	 ? in	 ? emission	 ?reduction	 ? technologies	 ? or	 ? low-??carbon	 ? generation,	 ? and	 ? was	 ? not	 ? sure	 ? that	 ? BC?s	 ?approach	 ?using	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?has	 ?been	 ?able	 ?to	 ?encourage	 ?the	 ?innovation	 ?that	 ?is	 ?needed,	 ?although	 ?it	 ?has	 ?done	 ??a	 ?reasonable	 ?job	 ?in	 ?raising	 ?awareness?.	 ?	 ?5.9	 ? Observations	 ?The	 ? interviews	 ? confirmed	 ? that	 ? UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU	 ? both	 ? have	 ? a	 ? long	 ? history	 ? of	 ? energy	 ?conservation	 ? and	 ? energy	 ? efficiency	 ? efforts,	 ? and	 ? they	 ? remain	 ? committed	 ? to	 ? pursue	 ?such	 ?efforts	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ?their	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?or	 ?wider	 ?sustainability	 ?agenda,	 ?using	 ?their	 ?own	 ? internal	 ?or	 ?operational	 ? funding.	 ? Since	 ? the	 ?mandate,	 ? the	 ? institutions	 ?have	 ?also	 ?	 ? 122	 ?added	 ?a	 ? focus	 ?on	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? to	 ? their	 ?energy	 ? focus,	 ?which	 ?now	 ?covers	 ?all	 ? their	 ?campuses,	 ?sites	 ?and	 ?sources.	 ?	 ?	 ?Interviewees	 ? from	 ?both	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?agree	 ? that	 ? carbon	 ?pricing	 ? in	 ? the	 ? form	 ?of	 ? the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?offsets	 ?required	 ?under	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?has	 ?been	 ?beneficial	 ?in	 ? raising	 ? awareness	 ? within	 ? the	 ? organizations	 ? of	 ? the	 ? need	 ? for	 ? climate	 ? mitigation	 ?actions.	 ? Carbon	 ? pricing	 ? also	 ? helps	 ? to	 ? tilt	 ? the	 ? balance	 ? in	 ? business	 ? case	 ? evaluations	 ?towards	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? drastically	 ? reduce	 ? GHG	 ? emissions,	 ? since	 ? the	 ?avoidance	 ? of	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? and	 ? carbon	 ? offsets	 ? can	 ? represent	 ? significant	 ? savings	 ? over	 ?the	 ? lifetime	 ? of	 ? such	 ? projects.	 ? Given	 ? the	 ? current	 ? low	 ? prices	 ? of	 ? natural	 ? gas,	 ? the	 ?combined	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?offsets	 ?add	 ?about	 ?25%	 ?to	 ?the	 ?total	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?consumption.	 ?	 ?With	 ? the	 ? strong	 ? commitment	 ? and	 ? support	 ? from	 ? the	 ? Board	 ? of	 ? Governors	 ? and	 ? top	 ?management,	 ?plus	 ?its	 ?larger	 ?pool	 ?of	 ?internal	 ?funding	 ?and	 ?external	 ?research	 ?funding	 ?from	 ? government	 ? and	 ? private	 ? sources,	 ? UBC	 ? has	 ?managed	 ? to	 ? proceed	 ?with	 ? several	 ?major	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? are	 ? expected	 ? to	 ? drastically	 ? reduce	 ? its	 ? GHG	 ?emissions	 ?over	 ?the	 ?next	 ?few	 ?years	 ?and	 ?help	 ?to	 ?achieve	 ?its	 ?aggressive	 ?GHG	 ?reduction	 ?targets.	 ? Interviewees	 ? have	 ? credited	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate,	 ? among	 ? other	 ? factors	 ? like	 ?leadership,	 ? organizational	 ? culture	 ? and	 ? track	 ? record,	 ? as	 ? contributing	 ? to	 ? the	 ?Board?s	 ?endorsement	 ?of	 ?an	 ?aggressive	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?plan	 ?and	 ?subsequent	 ?approval	 ?of	 ?major	 ?emission	 ?reduction	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ? contrast,	 ? SFU	 ? has	 ? not	 ? yet	 ? been	 ? able	 ? to	 ?make	 ? a	 ? decision	 ? on	 ? a	 ? proposed	 ? central	 ?heating	 ? plant	 ? despite	 ? a	 ? promise	 ? of	 ? $4.7	 ?million	 ? from	 ? the	 ? PSECA.	 ? Unlike	 ? UBC,	 ? SFU	 ?does	 ?not	 ?have	 ?a	 ?comprehensive	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?plan	 ?that	 ?specifically	 ?addresses	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?nor	 ?has	 ?it	 ?set	 ?firm	 ?targets	 ?for	 ?reducing	 ?these	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 123	 ?Organizationally,	 ?UBC	 ?has	 ?taken	 ?a	 ??step	 ?change?	 ?in	 ?sustainability	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?action	 ?by	 ?creating	 ?the	 ?USI,	 ?which	 ?brings	 ?together	 ?the	 ?academic	 ?and	 ?operational	 ?sides	 ?of	 ?the	 ?university	 ? into	 ? planning	 ? and	 ? development	 ? of	 ? campus	 ? facilities.	 ? SFU	 ? recently	 ?established	 ?a	 ?Sustainability	 ?Office	 ?with	 ? full-??time	 ?staff,	 ?but	 ? it	 ?seems	 ?too	 ?early	 ?to	 ?tell	 ?what	 ? impact	 ? this	 ? will	 ? have	 ? on	 ? sustainability	 ? and	 ? climate	 ? change	 ? efforts,	 ? and	 ? in	 ?particular,	 ?planning	 ?and	 ?renewal	 ?of	 ?campus	 ?facilities,	 ?which	 ?are	 ?still	 ? largely	 ?driven	 ?by	 ?the	 ?Facilities	 ?Services	 ?Department.	 ?	 ?	 ?Access	 ?to	 ?funding	 ?remains	 ?the	 ?major	 ?constraint	 ?hindering	 ?large	 ?emissions	 ?reduction	 ?infrastructure	 ? projects.	 ? The	 ? CNG	 ?mandate	 ? and	 ? carbon	 ? pricing	 ? has	 ? helped	 ? UBC	 ? to	 ?proceed	 ?with	 ?the	 ?steam	 ?to	 ?hot	 ?water	 ?conversion	 ?project	 ?by	 ?increasing	 ?the	 ?potential	 ?savings	 ?with	 ?which	 ?the	 ?project	 ?is	 ?substantially	 ?funded.	 ?However,	 ?they	 ?are	 ?as	 ?yet	 ?not	 ?sufficient	 ?to	 ?enable	 ?SFU	 ?to	 ?proceed	 ?with	 ?their	 ?proposed	 ?central	 ?heating	 ?plant,	 ?since	 ?there	 ?are	 ?other	 ?operational	 ?concerns	 ?and	 ?financial	 ?risks	 ?to	 ?consider.	 ?Moreover,	 ?the	 ?payment	 ? for	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? and	 ? carbon	 ? offsets	 ? represent	 ? a	 ? significant	 ? drain	 ? to	 ? the	 ?finances	 ?of	 ?both	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU,	 ?which	 ?might	 ?be	 ?at	 ?the	 ?expense	 ?of	 ?other	 ?operational	 ?or	 ?capital	 ?needs	 ?and	 ?priorities.	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 124	 ?6.	 ? Discussion	 ?6.1	 ? Introduction	 ? 	 ?This	 ?chapter	 ?discusses	 ?the	 ?findings	 ?and	 ?observations	 ?gleaned	 ?from	 ?Chapters	 ?2,	 ?4	 ?and	 ?5	 ?with	 ?respect	 ?to	 ?the	 ?propositions	 ?and	 ?research	 ?questions	 ?posed	 ?in	 ?Chapter	 ?3.	 ?Some	 ?limitations	 ?of	 ?this	 ?study	 ?that	 ?should	 ?be	 ?noted	 ?are	 ?discussed	 ?in	 ?Section	 ?6.6,	 ?together	 ?with	 ? some	 ? thoughts	 ? on	 ? how	 ? the	 ? methodology	 ? used	 ? can	 ? be	 ? improved	 ? for	 ? future	 ?studies.	 ?	 ?6.2	 ? Propositions	 ?Tested	 ?6.2.1	 ? Proposition	 ?1	 ?P1:	 ? BC?s	 ? CNG	 ?mandate,	 ? together	 ? with	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax,	 ? have	 ?made	 ? it	 ? significantly	 ?easier	 ? for	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? to	 ? justify	 ? and	 ? decide	 ? to	 ? implement	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?substantially	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ? CNARs	 ? and	 ? other	 ? documents	 ? from	 ? the	 ? BC	 ? Government	 ? and	 ? case	 ? study	 ? PSOs	 ?show	 ? that	 ? since	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate	 ? was	 ? announced	 ? in	 ? late	 ? 2007,	 ? most	 ? PSOs	 ? have	 ?taken	 ? actions	 ? towards	 ? reducing	 ? their	 ? GHG	 ? emissions,	 ? including	 ? infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?such	 ?as	 ?lighting	 ?and	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?retrofits.	 ?The	 ?two	 ?smaller	 ?case	 ?study	 ?organizations,	 ?DO	 ?and	 ?VCC,	 ?undertook	 ?lighting	 ?retrofits	 ?and	 ?small	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?projects	 ? like	 ?installation	 ?of	 ?DCC	 ?in	 ?HVAC	 ?systems,	 ?high-??efficiency	 ?hot	 ?water	 ?boilers	 ?and	 ?variable	 ?speed	 ?motors,	 ?using	 ?mainly	 ?their	 ? internal	 ? funding.	 ?These	 ?are	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?larger	 ?institutions	 ?like	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?have	 ?already	 ?done	 ?during	 ?previous	 ?rounds	 ?of	 ?efficiency	 ?upgrades.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 125	 ?Although	 ? many	 ? of	 ? these	 ? projects	 ? are	 ? not	 ? done	 ? specifically	 ? to	 ? address	 ? energy	 ?consumption	 ?or	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?PSOs	 ?have	 ?taken	 ?the	 ?opportunity	 ?within	 ?renovation	 ?projects	 ?or	 ?new	 ?building	 ?developments	 ?to	 ?increase	 ?their	 ?energy	 ?efficiency	 ?or	 ?reduce	 ?energy	 ? consumption.	 ?Whether	 ? these	 ? are	 ? small	 ? or	 ? large-??scale	 ? projects,	 ? they	 ? should	 ?reduce	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?if	 ?not	 ?absolutely,	 ?at	 ?least	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?a	 ??business-??as-??usual?	 ?scenario	 ?where	 ?PSOs	 ?grow	 ?their	 ?services	 ?to	 ?cater	 ?to	 ?a	 ?larger	 ?population	 ? in	 ? BC	 ? or	 ? increased	 ? economic	 ? activities.	 ? However,	 ? for	 ? many	 ? PSOs,	 ?progress	 ? in	 ? climate	 ? action	 ? seems	 ? to	 ? have	 ? slowed	 ? or	 ? stalled	 ? since	 ? 2011	 ?when	 ? the	 ??low-??hanging	 ? fruits?	 ? for	 ? energy	 ? efficiency	 ? have	 ? been	 ? harvested	 ? and	 ? no	 ? additional	 ?sources	 ?of	 ?government	 ?grants	 ?or	 ?external	 ?funding	 ?were	 ?available.	 ?	 ?During	 ? the	 ? expert	 ? interviews,	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? and	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? were	 ? cited	 ? as	 ?beneficial	 ?to	 ?the	 ?decisions	 ?for	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects,	 ?especially	 ?in	 ?the	 ?case	 ?of	 ?UBC.	 ?Carbon	 ? pricing	 ? helps	 ? to	 ? tilt	 ? the	 ? balance	 ? in	 ? business	 ? case	 ? evaluations	 ? towards	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?drastically	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?since	 ?the	 ?avoidance	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?offsets	 ?can	 ?represent	 ?significant	 ?savings	 ?over	 ?the	 ?lifetime	 ?of	 ?such	 ?projects.	 ?An	 ?example	 ?is	 ?UBC?s	 ?steam	 ?to	 ?hot	 ?water	 ?conversion	 ?project	 ?where	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?pricing	 ?has	 ?helped	 ?by	 ? increasing	 ? the	 ? forecast	 ?amount	 ?of	 ?energy	 ? savings	 ? from	 ? higher	 ? efficiency	 ? and	 ? lower	 ? distribution	 ? losses,	 ? and	 ? the	 ?potential	 ?savings	 ?are	 ?used	 ?to	 ?fund	 ?the	 ?bulk	 ?of	 ?the	 ?project	 ?cost.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Although	 ? since	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate,	 ? UBC	 ? has	 ? embarked	 ? on	 ? several	 ? major	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?BRDF	 ?and	 ?steam	 ?to	 ?hot	 ?water	 ?conversion	 ?project,	 ?the	 ? decisions	 ? to	 ? proceed	 ?with	 ? these	 ?major	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ?were	 ? not	 ?made	 ?solely,	 ? or	 ? even	 ? primarily	 ? because	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate	 ? or	 ? carbon	 ? pricing.	 ? Rather,	 ?there	 ?were	 ?a	 ?host	 ?of	 ?motivations,	 ?including	 ?operational	 ?needs,	 ?academic	 ?or	 ?research	 ?objectives	 ?and	 ?the	 ?strong	 ?emphasis	 ?on	 ?sustainability	 ?in	 ?general.	 ?What	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ? carbon	 ? offset	 ? cost	 ? did	 ?was	 ? tilt	 ? the	 ? balance	 ? in	 ? economic	 ? evaluation,	 ? especially	 ?	 ? 126	 ?when	 ?the	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?prices	 ?and	 ?electricity	 ?rates	 ?are	 ?very	 ?low	 ?in	 ?BC,	 ?making	 ?it	 ?easier	 ?for	 ?the	 ?decision	 ?makers	 ?to	 ?approve	 ?the	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?	 ?SFU	 ?has	 ?not	 ?decided	 ? to	 ? go	 ? ahead	 ?with	 ? any	 ?major	 ? infrastructure	 ?project	 ? since	 ?CNG	 ?was	 ?mandated.	 ?A	 ?couple	 ?of	 ?major	 ?renewal	 ?or	 ?retrofit	 ?projects	 ?were	 ?undertaken,	 ?but	 ?they	 ?were	 ?decided	 ?before	 ?the	 ?mandate	 ?or	 ?were	 ?not	 ?specifically	 ?undertaken	 ?in	 ?order	 ?to	 ? reduce	 ? energy	 ? consumption	 ? or	 ? GHG	 ? emissions.	 ? Nonetheless,	 ? with	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate	 ?and	 ?provincial	 ?requirement	 ?for	 ?major	 ?construction	 ?or	 ?retrofits	 ?to	 ?be	 ?LEED-??Gold	 ? certified,	 ? these	 ? projects	 ? were	 ? brought	 ? to	 ? that	 ? minimum	 ? standard,	 ? with	 ? the	 ?result	 ?that	 ?the	 ?buildings	 ?did	 ?become	 ?more	 ?energy	 ?efficient.	 ?	 ?	 ?Although	 ? SFU	 ? interviewees	 ? indicated	 ? that	 ? the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?might	 ? not	 ? have	 ?much	 ?direct	 ?influence	 ?on	 ?the	 ?decision	 ?for	 ?the	 ?proposed	 ?central	 ?heating	 ?plant,	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?other	 ?factors,	 ?they	 ?mentioned	 ?that	 ?it	 ?has	 ?certainly	 ?raised	 ?awareness	 ?among	 ?decision-??makers	 ?and	 ?made	 ?the	 ?explicit	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?emissions	 ?a	 ?part	 ?of	 ?the	 ?conversation.	 ?In	 ?this	 ?sense,	 ? the	 ?mandate	 ?has	 ?made	 ? it	 ?slightly	 ?easier	 ? for	 ?SFU	 ?to	 ? justify	 ?and	 ?decide	 ?to	 ?implement	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?substantially	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?6.2.2	 ? Proposition	 ?2	 ?P2:	 ? Shortage	 ? of	 ? funding	 ? remains	 ? as	 ? the	 ? major	 ? constraint	 ? holding	 ? back	 ?infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? substantially	 ? reduce	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? in	 ? these	 ?institutions.	 ?	 ?All	 ?interviewees	 ?from	 ?the	 ?two	 ?case	 ?study	 ?organizations	 ?cited	 ?availability	 ?of	 ?funding	 ?or	 ? access	 ? to	 ? capital	 ? for	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? as	 ? the	 ? major	 ? constraint	 ? hindering	 ?these	 ?projects.	 ?The	 ? issue	 ?of	 ? funding	 ?encompasses	 ? the	 ?overall	 ? limited	 ?pool	 ?of	 ? funds	 ?for	 ? the	 ? post-??secondary	 ? sector,	 ? operational	 ? funding	 ? shortfalls	 ? within	 ? individual	 ?	 ? 127	 ?institutions	 ?and	 ?the	 ?prohibition	 ?to	 ?incur	 ?additional	 ?debt	 ?for	 ?capital	 ?projects	 ?through	 ?external	 ?borrowing.	 ?DO	 ?also	 ?mentioned	 ?in	 ?several	 ?of	 ?its	 ?CNARs	 ?that	 ?the	 ?reduction	 ?in	 ?its	 ?Annual	 ? Capital	 ?Allowance	 ?has	 ? had	 ? an	 ? impact	 ? on	 ? the	 ?College's	 ? ability	 ? to	 ? pursue	 ?substantive	 ?capital	 ?initiatives	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?Besides	 ?funding,	 ?another	 ?major	 ?constraint	 ?cited	 ?by	 ?some	 ?interviewees	 ?is	 ?low	 ?energy	 ?prices	 ? in	 ? the	 ? province,	 ? which	 ? makes	 ? it	 ? harder	 ? to	 ? build	 ? up	 ? a	 ? business	 ? case	 ? for	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?depend	 ?on	 ?energy	 ?savings.	 ?In	 ?this	 ?regard,	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?requirement	 ?to	 ?purchase	 ?carbon	 ?offsets	 ?has	 ?been	 ?a	 ?great	 ?help	 ?to	 ?some	 ?projects,	 ?assuming	 ? that	 ? the	 ? policy	 ? of	 ? carbon	 ? pricing	 ? remains	 ? in	 ? place	 ? over	 ? the	 ? life	 ? of	 ? the	 ?project.	 ?	 ?Bureaucratic	 ? inertia	 ? and	 ? lack	 ? of	 ? awareness	 ? and	 ? communication,	 ? identified	 ? by	 ?(Webster	 ?and	 ?Moore	 ?2009)	 ? in	 ? their	 ?earlier	 ?study,	 ?appear	 ?to	 ?be	 ? less	 ?of	 ?a	 ?constraint	 ?now	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?at	 ?the	 ?time	 ?of	 ?that	 ?study,	 ?which	 ?is	 ?within	 ?one	 ?and	 ?a	 ?half	 ?years	 ?after	 ?the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? was	 ? announced.	 ? The	 ? combination	 ? of	 ? emphasis	 ? placed	 ? by	 ? the	 ?provincial	 ? government	 ? on	 ? legislating	 ? its	 ? GHG	 ? targets	 ? and	 ? CNG	 ? requirements,	 ? the	 ?initial	 ? establishment	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CAS	 ? under	 ? the	 ? Premier?s	 ? Office	 ? and	 ? publicity	 ?surrounding	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?programme	 ?have	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?raise	 ?awareness	 ?within	 ?PSOs.	 ?This	 ? is	 ? especially	 ? so	 ? among	 ? those	 ? involved	 ? in	 ? the	 ? process	 ? of	 ? measuring	 ? and	 ?accounting	 ?for	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?and	 ?financing	 ?the	 ?payment	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?offsets.	 ? Decision-??makers,	 ? who	 ? have	 ? to	 ? decide	 ? on	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ?significantly	 ?impact	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?are	 ?generally	 ?more	 ?aware	 ?of	 ?the	 ?costs	 ?tagged	 ?to	 ?such	 ? emissions.	 ? For	 ? example,	 ? UBC?s	 ? CAP,	 ? which	 ? was	 ? endorsed	 ? by	 ? the	 ? Board	 ? of	 ?Governors,	 ?estimated	 ?that	 ?the	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?paying	 ?the	 ?provincial	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?procuring	 ?carbon	 ? offsets	 ? for	 ? the	 ? next	 ? 25	 ? years	 ? has	 ? a	 ? net	 ? present	 ? value	 ? of	 ? $50	 ? million	 ?(University	 ? of	 ? British	 ? Columbia	 ? 2010).	 ? The	 ? requirement	 ? for	 ? annual	 ? public	 ? reports	 ?under	 ? CNG	 ? (i.e.	 ? CNAR)	 ? also	 ? puts	 ? some	 ? pressure	 ? on	 ? PSOs	 ? to	 ? take	 ? action	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ?	 ? 128	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions,	 ?although	 ?opinions	 ?differ	 ?as	 ?to	 ?the	 ?extent	 ?that	 ?this	 ?requirement	 ?influences	 ?the	 ?actions	 ?of	 ?organizations.	 ?	 ?	 ?Other	 ?constraints	 ? cited	 ? include	 ? technology	 ? risks,	 ? complexities	 ?and	 ?uncertainties	 ? in	 ?the	 ?regulatory	 ?regime	 ?for	 ?district	 ?energy,	 ?and	 ?other	 ?practical	 ?and	 ?pragmatic	 ? issues	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?the	 ?implementation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?mandate.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?In	 ?general,	 ?more	 ?of	 ?the	 ?interviewees	 ?are	 ?of	 ?the	 ?view	 ?that	 ?the	 ?payment	 ?for	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?offsets	 ?means	 ?less	 ?money	 ?for	 ?emission	 ?reduction	 ?activities	 ?and	 ?projects,	 ?utility	 ?payments,	 ?building	 ?maintenance	 ?or	 ?any	 ?other	 ?programmes	 ?or	 ?activities	 ?of	 ?the	 ?organizations.	 ? However,	 ? they	 ? are	 ? not	 ? able	 ? to	 ? specify	 ? which	 ? of	 ? these	 ? areas	 ? are	 ?affected	 ? since	 ? they	 ? are	 ? all	 ? part	 ? of	 ? the	 ? operational	 ? budget.	 ? Almost	 ? all	 ? of	 ? the	 ? SFU	 ?interviewees	 ?believe	 ?that	 ?while	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?programme	 ?applies	 ?regulatory	 ?pressure	 ?to	 ?act	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? emissions,	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? offsets	 ? are	 ? taking	 ? a	 ? lot	 ? of	 ? money	 ? out	 ? of	 ? the	 ?institution,	 ?which	 ?makes	 ?it	 ?harder	 ?because	 ?they	 ?could	 ?have	 ?invested	 ?these	 ?instead	 ?in	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?or	 ?other	 ?things	 ?that	 ?would	 ?reduce	 ?their	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?6.2.3	 ? Proposition	 ?3	 ?P3:	 ? Support	 ?mechanisms	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate	 ? have	 ? helped	 ? to	 ? address	 ? the	 ?major	 ?constraints	 ?hindering	 ?emission	 ?reduction	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?Document	 ? analysis	 ? did	 ? not	 ? offer	 ?much	 ? indication	 ? that	 ? support	 ?mechanisms	 ? of	 ? the	 ?CNG	 ? mandate	 ? have	 ? helped	 ? to	 ? a	 ? great	 ? extent	 ? to	 ? address	 ? the	 ? major	 ? constraints	 ?hindering	 ?emission	 ?reduction	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects.	 ?But	 ?the	 ?interviews	 ?did	 ?reveal	 ?how	 ? PSOs	 ? have	 ? benefited	 ? from	 ? support	 ?mechanisms	 ? provided	 ? as	 ? part	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?programme	 ?or	 ?existing	 ?support	 ?mechanisms	 ?offered	 ?by	 ?other	 ?provincial	 ?or	 ? federal	 ?government	 ?agencies.	 ?	 ? 129	 ?PSECA	 ? funding	 ? was	 ? granted	 ? to	 ? almost	 ? 250	 ? energy	 ? projects	 ? in	 ? schools,	 ? hospitals,	 ?post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? and	 ? other	 ? government	 ? agencies	 ? across	 ? the	 ? province.	 ?Many	 ? more	 ? project	 ? applications	 ? were	 ? submitted	 ? but	 ? not	 ? supported,	 ? due	 ? to	 ? the	 ?limitation	 ? of	 ? funds	 ? to	 ? a	 ? total	 ? of	 ? $75	 ? million	 ? over	 ? 3	 ? years.	 ? Without	 ? a	 ? detailed	 ?investigation,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?unclear	 ?how	 ?many	 ?of	 ?the	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?were	 ?granted	 ?PSECA	 ?funds	 ?would	 ?have	 ?gone	 ?ahead	 ?even	 ?without	 ?the	 ?grants,	 ?and	 ?how	 ?many	 ?other	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?did	 ? not	 ? receive	 ? PSECA	 ? grants	 ? proceeded	 ? nonetheless	 ? despite	 ? not	 ? getting	 ? these	 ?grants.	 ?	 ?	 ?Among	 ? the	 ? 4	 ? case	 ? study	 ? organizations,	 ? only	 ? VCC	 ? obtained	 ? partial	 ? funding	 ? from	 ?PSECA,	 ?which	 ? facilitated	 ? the	 ? installation	 ?of	 ? energy-??efficient	 ?hot	 ?water	 ? tanks	 ? at	 ? the	 ?College?s	 ?new	 ?building	 ?at	 ? the	 ?Downtown	 ?Campus.	 ?The	 ?promise	 ?of	 ?PSECA	 ?grants	 ?of	 ?up	 ?to	 ?$4.7	 ?million	 ?was,	 ?however,	 ?as	 ?yet	 ?not	 ?sufficient	 ?to	 ?enable	 ?SFU	 ?to	 ?proceed	 ?with	 ?their	 ? proposed	 ? central	 ? heating	 ?plant,	 ? since	 ? there	 ? are	 ? other	 ? considerations	 ? such	 ? as	 ?higher	 ? capital	 ? cost	 ? compared	 ? to	 ? conventional	 ? systems,	 ? operational	 ? concerns	 ? and	 ?financial	 ?risks.	 ?Although	 ?UBC	 ?was	 ?unsuccessful	 ?in	 ?its	 ?application	 ?for	 ?PSECA	 ?funds,	 ?it	 ?was	 ? able	 ? to	 ? secure	 ? significant	 ? funding	 ? from	 ?other	 ? government	 ? agencies,	 ? including	 ?federal	 ?grants,	 ?for	 ?its	 ?BRDF	 ?project	 ?primarily	 ?because	 ?of	 ?the	 ?research	 ?component.	 ?As	 ?a	 ?result,	 ?UBC	 ?only	 ?had	 ?to	 ?put	 ?up	 ?about	 ?one	 ?third	 ?of	 ?the	 ?capital	 ?for	 ?this	 ?project.	 ?	 ?	 ?Although	 ?unrelated	 ?to	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ?the	 ?federal	 ?KIP	 ?programme	 ?has	 ?helped	 ?to	 ?fund	 ? some	 ? large	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? at	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? in	 ? BC,	 ?including	 ?all	 ?4	 ?case	 ?study	 ?PSOs,	 ?such	 ?that	 ?they	 ?were	 ?able	 ?to	 ?undertake	 ?renovation	 ?or	 ?upgrading	 ?of	 ?buildings,	 ?which	 ?also	 ?improved	 ?their	 ?energy	 ?efficiency.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?Another	 ? support	 ?mechanism	 ? that	 ?has	 ?helped	 ?many	 ?PSOs	 ? is	 ? SMARTTool,	 ? especially	 ?the	 ?smaller	 ?PSOs	 ?that	 ?do	 ?not	 ?have	 ?the	 ?resources	 ?to	 ?develop	 ?a	 ?GHG	 ?inventory	 ?on	 ?their	 ?own.	 ?This	 ?has	 ?enabled	 ?all	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?measure	 ?or	 ?calculate	 ?emissions	 ?that	 ?are	 ?covered	 ?by	 ? the	 ? mandate.	 ? However,	 ? for	 ? those	 ? that	 ? had	 ? commissioned	 ? GHG	 ? inventories	 ? on	 ?	 ? 130	 ?their	 ? own,	 ? such	 ? as	 ? UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU,	 ? they	 ? did	 ? not	 ? find	 ? SMARTTool	 ? to	 ? be	 ? that	 ? useful.	 ?Instead,	 ?it	 ?resulted	 ?at	 ?the	 ?beginning	 ?in	 ?additional	 ?work	 ?to	 ?reconcile	 ?different	 ?figures,	 ?and	 ?extra	 ?cost	 ?for	 ?the	 ?software,	 ?until	 ?the	 ?provincial	 ?government	 ?waived	 ?the	 ?cost	 ?for	 ?SMARTTool	 ?in	 ?2012.	 ?	 ?	 ?An	 ?ongoing	 ? support	 ?mechanism	 ? that	 ? is	 ? provided	 ?by	 ?BC	 ?Hydro	 ? and	 ?FortisBC	 ? is	 ? co-??funding	 ?to	 ?hire	 ?energy	 ?managers	 ?or	 ?energy	 ?specialists.	 ?This	 ?has	 ?been	 ?helpful	 ?to	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ? to	 ?build	 ?up	 ? its	 ? internal	 ?expertise	 ? in	 ?energy	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?management.	 ?At	 ? the	 ?same	 ?time,	 ?this	 ?provides	 ?a	 ?platform	 ?for	 ?energy	 ?manager	 ?and	 ?energy	 ?specialists	 ?from	 ?different	 ?organizations	 ?to	 ?share	 ?experiences,	 ?lessons,	 ?best	 ?practices	 ?and	 ?knowledge	 ?about	 ? new	 ? technologies.	 ? BC	 ? Hydro	 ? and	 ? FortisBC	 ? also	 ? funds	 ? feasibility	 ? studies	 ? on	 ?alternative	 ?energy	 ?and	 ?other	 ?emissions	 ?reduction	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?	 ?Another	 ? set	 ? of	 ? support	 ? mechanisms	 ? is	 ? the	 ? learning	 ? networks	 ? that	 ? these	 ?organizations	 ?belong	 ? to,	 ?whereby	 ? they	 ? share	 ? technical	 ? and	 ?operational	 ? knowledge	 ?and	 ?experiences	 ?from	 ?implementing	 ?projects.	 ?One	 ?such	 ?network	 ?for	 ?post-??secondary	 ?institutions	 ? is	 ?AASHE.	 ?The	 ?CAS	 ?has	 ? also	 ? set	 ? up	 ?new	 ?networks	 ? such	 ? as	 ? the	 ?Climate	 ?Action	 ?Secretariat	 ?Advisory	 ?Committee,	 ?a	 ?forum	 ?for	 ?information	 ?sharing	 ?and	 ?inputs	 ?about	 ?PSO	 ?concerns,	 ?comprising	 ?representatives	 ?from	 ?the	 ?various	 ?sectors	 ?like	 ?health	 ?authorities,	 ?schools	 ?districts	 ?and	 ?post-??secondary	 ?education.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?6.3	 ? Research	 ?Question	 ?1	 ?RQ1:	 ?Has	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate	 ? changed	 ?decision-??making	 ? processes	 ? and	 ? outcomes	 ? for	 ?new	 ? or	 ? retrofit	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? significantly	 ? reduce	 ? GHG	 ?emissions?	 ?How	 ?and	 ?why?	 ?	 ?	 ? 131	 ?Although	 ? the	 ? procedures	 ? for	 ? evaluating	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? and	 ? the	 ? decision-??making	 ? process	 ? has	 ? not	 ? changed	 ? substantially,	 ? the	 ? priorities	 ? and	 ? factors	 ? for	 ?consideration	 ?have	 ?been	 ? influenced	 ?by	 ? the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate.	 ?By	 ? requiring	 ?PSOs	 ? to	 ?be	 ??carbon	 ? neutral?	 ? and	 ? setting	 ? an	 ? explicit	 ? cost	 ? for	 ? carbon	 ? emissions	 ? in	 ? the	 ? form	 ? of	 ?carbon	 ? offsets	 ? (in	 ? addition	 ? to	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax),	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? has	 ? changed	 ?decision-??making	 ?processes	 ?for	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?in	 ?2	 ?ways:	 ?(a) It	 ? has	 ? raised	 ? the	 ? priority,	 ? within	 ? the	 ? decision-??making	 ? process	 ? for	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects,	 ?for	 ?consideration	 ?of	 ? ?sustainability?	 ?in	 ?general,	 ?and	 ?for	 ?reducing	 ?carbon	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?particular;	 ?and	 ?(b) It	 ?has	 ?tilted	 ?the	 ?balance	 ?in	 ?economic	 ?evaluations	 ?of	 ?projects	 ?(i.e.	 ?business	 ?case)	 ?towards	 ?options	 ?that	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?or	 ?have	 ?lower	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?At	 ? the	 ? same	 ? time,	 ? the	 ? provincial	 ? government	 ? has	 ? also	 ? set	 ? a	 ?minimum	 ? standard	 ? of	 ?LEED-??Gold	 ?certification	 ?for	 ?all	 ?major	 ?new	 ?construction	 ?or	 ?retrofit	 ?of	 ?buildings.	 ?	 ?The	 ? extent	 ? to	 ? which	 ? the	 ? mandate	 ? has	 ? changed	 ? decision	 ? processes	 ? varies	 ? among	 ?organizations,	 ?from	 ?those	 ?that	 ?place	 ?high	 ?priority	 ?on	 ?reducing	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?as	 ?an	 ?integral	 ? part	 ? of	 ? its	 ? primary	 ? mission,	 ? to	 ? those	 ? that	 ? have	 ? to	 ? cater	 ? to	 ? competing	 ?operational	 ? and	 ? other	 ? priorities	 ? within	 ? a	 ? limited	 ? budget.	 ? In	 ? the	 ? case	 ? of	 ? UBC,	 ? the	 ?above	 ? factors	 ? have	 ? contributed	 ? to	 ? the	 ? Board	 ? of	 ? Governor?s	 ? approval	 ? of	 ? major	 ?infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? including	 ? the	 ? CIRS	 ?Building,	 ? BRDF	 ? and	 ? steam	 ? to	 ? hot	 ?water	 ?conversion	 ? project,	 ? as	 ? well	 ? as	 ? participation	 ? in	 ? the	 ? Continuous	 ? Optimization	 ?Programme.	 ? These	 ? projects	 ? represent	 ? a	 ? higher	 ? investment	 ? in	 ? GHG	 ? reduction	 ?projects	 ?during	 ?the	 ? last	 ? few	 ?years	 ?than	 ?at	 ?any	 ?comparable	 ?period	 ? in	 ?UBC?s	 ?history.	 ?Not	 ?many	 ?other	 ?PSOs	 ?have	 ?embarked	 ?on	 ?such	 ?major	 ?infrastructure	 ?investments,	 ?but	 ?this	 ?shows	 ?that	 ?given	 ?the	 ?right	 ?set	 ?of	 ?circumstances,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?possible	 ?for	 ?organizations	 ?to	 ?take	 ?action	 ?to	 ?transform	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?profile.	 ?UBC	 ?has	 ?also	 ?institutionalized	 ?some	 ?of	 ?the	 ? sustainability	 ? measures	 ? within	 ? their	 ? planning	 ? and	 ? development	 ? process	 ? by	 ?	 ? 132	 ?incorporating	 ?minimum	 ?requirements	 ?into	 ?their	 ?Technical	 ?Guidelines	 ?and	 ?specifying	 ?energy	 ?intensity	 ?targets	 ?for	 ?new	 ?buildings.	 ?	 ?Besides	 ?infrastructure	 ?investments,	 ?some	 ?PSOs	 ?have	 ?signaled	 ?a	 ?greater	 ?commitment	 ?to	 ? ?sustainability?,	 ? of	 ? which	 ? climate	 ? action	 ? is	 ? one	 ? aspect.	 ? Both	 ? SFU	 ? and	 ? VCC	 ? have	 ?established	 ?within	 ?their	 ?organizations	 ?new	 ?positions	 ?to	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?sustainability.	 ?They	 ?are	 ? also	 ? working	 ? within	 ? their	 ? organization	 ? to	 ? formulate	 ? targets	 ? or	 ? plans	 ? for	 ?managing	 ?energy	 ?usage	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?However,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?too	 ?early	 ?to	 ?tell	 ?whether	 ?they	 ?will	 ?be	 ?able	 ?to	 ?mobilize	 ?the	 ?organization	 ?to	 ?undertake	 ?more	 ?concrete	 ?steps	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ? emissions,	 ? including	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? will	 ? transform	 ? their	 ?emissions	 ?profile.	 ?	 ?Ultimately,	 ?the	 ?outcomes	 ?should	 ?be	 ?evaluated	 ?using	 ?the	 ?quantity	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?emitted	 ?by	 ?the	 ?organizations	 ?over	 ?time.	 ?Based	 ?on	 ?the	 ?quantitative	 ?data	 ?available	 ?so	 ?far,	 ?i.e.	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ? reported	 ? by	 ? PSOs	 ? from	 ? 2010	 ? to	 ? 2012,	 ? there	 ? is	 ? no	 ? clear	 ? trend	 ? towards	 ?significant	 ? reduction	 ? in	 ? the	 ? total	 ? public	 ? sector	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?covered	 ?by	 ? the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate.	 ?Similarly,	 ?at	 ?the	 ?sectoral	 ?and	 ?organizational	 ?levels,	 ?the	 ?emission	 ?levels	 ?also	 ?did	 ?not	 ?indicate	 ?any	 ?sustained	 ?reduction	 ?over	 ?this	 ?period.	 ?	 ?	 ?A	 ?closer	 ?look	 ?at	 ?the	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?data	 ?of	 ?two	 ?of	 ?the	 ?case	 ?study	 ? organizations,	 ? UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU,	 ? shows	 ? that	 ? total	 ? electricity	 ? consumption	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?rise	 ?while	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?consumption	 ?fluctuates,	 ?with	 ?a	 ?slight	 ?downward	 ?trend	 ? in	 ? SFU.	 ? Total	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? covered	 ? by	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? have	 ? been	 ?decreasing	 ?in	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?over	 ?a	 ?longer	 ?period	 ?from	 ?2000	 ?(for	 ?UBC)	 ?and	 ?2007	 ?(for	 ?SFU),	 ? which	 ? is	 ? consistent	 ? with	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ? the	 ? province	 ? as	 ? a	 ? whole	 ? and	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?the	 ?municipalities	 ?in	 ?which	 ?the	 ?main	 ?campuses	 ?of	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?are	 ?located.	 ? Emissions	 ? from	 ? UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU	 ? fleets	 ? showed	 ? a	 ? much	 ? more	 ? significant	 ?downward	 ?trend	 ?after	 ?2007.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 133	 ?In	 ?both	 ?institutions,	 ?GHG	 ?intensities	 ?showed	 ?a	 ?more	 ?marked	 ?decline	 ?than	 ?total	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?over	 ?the	 ?longer	 ?period	 ?than	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?The	 ?intensities	 ?of	 ?natural	 ?gas	 ?consumption	 ? in	 ?both	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?show	 ?clear	 ?downward	 ? trends	 ?over	 ? time,	 ?as	 ?did	 ? SFU?s	 ? electricity	 ? consumption	 ? intensity	 ? per	 ? student,	 ? but	 ? UBC?s	 ? electricity	 ?consumption	 ?intensity	 ?per	 ?student	 ?and	 ?per	 ?square	 ?metre	 ?have	 ?both	 ?been	 ?increasing	 ?from	 ?2006	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?There	 ?does	 ?not	 ?appear	 ?to	 ?be	 ?any	 ?discernible	 ?change	 ?in	 ?the	 ?trend	 ?of	 ?reduction	 ?in	 ?either	 ?institutions?	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?or	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?since	 ?2008	 ?when	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?was	 ?announced,	 ?nor	 ?since	 ?2010	 ?when	 ?PSOs	 ?are	 ?required	 ?to	 ?purchase	 ?offsets	 ?for	 ?their	 ?remaining	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?Changes	 ?in	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?and	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?seem	 ?to	 ?be	 ?part	 ?of	 ? longer-??term	 ? trends	 ? in	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU,	 ? rather	 ?than	 ?an	 ?effect	 ?of	 ?the	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?or	 ?CNG	 ?mandate.	 ?	 ?Moving	 ? forward,	 ? with	 ? the	 ? completion	 ? of	 ? major	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects,	 ? UBC?s	 ?emissions	 ?are	 ?expected	 ?to	 ?be	 ?drastically	 ?reduced	 ?in	 ?the	 ?next	 ?few	 ?years.	 ?Its	 ?target	 ?is	 ?to	 ?lower	 ?emissions	 ?by	 ?33%	 ?by	 ?2015,	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?2007	 ?levels.	 ?Also,	 ?if	 ?SFU	 ?proceeds	 ?with	 ?its	 ?proposed	 ?central	 ?heating	 ?plant,	 ?it	 ?may	 ?reduce	 ?up	 ?to	 ?80%	 ?of	 ?its	 ?current	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?For	 ?other	 ?PSOs,	 ?it	 ?remains	 ?to	 ?be	 ?seen	 ?whether	 ?they	 ?are	 ?able	 ?to	 ?secure	 ?the	 ?necessary	 ? funds	 ? to	 ? enable	 ? them	 ? to	 ? undertake	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? will	 ?transform	 ?their	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?6.4	 ? Research	 ?Question	 ?2	 ?RQ2:	 ?	 ? What	 ?support	 ?mechanisms	 ?helped	 ?or	 ?would	 ?help	 ?decision-??making	 ? in	 ? favour	 ?of	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?substantially	 ?reduce	 ?GHG	 ?emissions?	 ?	 ?	 ?Following	 ?from	 ?the	 ?discussion	 ?in	 ?Section	 ?6.2.3,	 ?it	 ?can	 ?be	 ?surmised	 ?that	 ?funding	 ?in	 ?the	 ?form	 ? of	 ? capital	 ? grants	 ? from	 ? PSECA	 ? and	 ? research	 ? grants	 ? from	 ? various	 ? government	 ?agencies	 ? and	 ? third	 ? parties	 ? have	 ? been	 ? most	 ? useful	 ? to	 ? PSOs	 ? in	 ? enabling	 ? them	 ? to	 ?proceed	 ? with	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? significantly	 ? reduce	 ? GHG	 ? emissions.	 ?	 ? 134	 ?However,	 ?it	 ?should	 ?be	 ?noted	 ?that	 ?these	 ?funding	 ?or	 ?grants	 ?form	 ?only	 ?a	 ?portion	 ?of	 ?total	 ?project	 ?cost,	 ?so	 ?PSOs	 ?need	 ?to	 ?secure	 ?the	 ?rest	 ?of	 ?the	 ?funds	 ?in	 ?order	 ?for	 ?the	 ?project	 ?to	 ?go	 ?ahead.	 ?The	 ?ability	 ?to	 ?do	 ?the	 ?latter	 ?depends	 ?heavily	 ?on	 ?the	 ?internal	 ?resources	 ?that	 ?the	 ?PSOs	 ?can	 ?access,	 ?so	 ?large	 ?organizations	 ?tend	 ?to	 ?have	 ?an	 ?edge	 ?in	 ?this	 ?while	 ?most	 ?small	 ? organizations	 ? have	 ? few	 ? options	 ? when	 ? they	 ? are	 ? faced	 ? with	 ? tight	 ? budgetary	 ?situations	 ? like	 ? in	 ? the	 ? past	 ? few	 ? years.	 ? As	 ? most	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? can	 ?transform	 ?an	 ?organization?s	 ?emissions	 ?profile	 ?are	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?require	 ?large	 ?amounts	 ?of	 ?funds	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?the	 ?size	 ?of	 ?funds	 ?that	 ?the	 ?organizations	 ?can	 ?routinely	 ?set	 ?aside,	 ?they	 ?are	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?need	 ?other	 ?sources	 ?of	 ?funding.	 ?	 ?	 ?Allowing	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?borrow	 ?externally	 ?to	 ?finance	 ?such	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?could	 ?be	 ?one	 ? alternative	 ? that	 ?may	 ?work.	 ? However,	 ? since	 ? the	 ? change	 ? in	 ? rules	 ? that	 ? included	 ?debt	 ? from	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? within	 ? the	 ? overall	 ? provincial	 ? debt	 ? ceiling,	 ?many	 ? of	 ? these	 ? institutions	 ? are	 ? not	 ? allowed	 ? to	 ? take	 ? on	 ? additional	 ? debt	 ? unless	 ?approved	 ?by	 ?the	 ?provincial	 ?government.	 ?A	 ?clarification	 ?of	 ?the	 ?rules	 ?with	 ?respect	 ?to	 ?energy	 ? saving	 ? or	 ? emissions	 ? reduction	 ? capital	 ? projects	 ? might	 ? help	 ? more	 ? PSOs	 ? to	 ?implement	 ?projects	 ? that	 ?ultimately	 ?result	 ? in	 ?savings,	 ? that	 ?can	 ? in	 ? turn	 ?pay	 ?back	 ? the	 ?debt	 ?that	 ?they	 ?incur	 ?by	 ?taking	 ?on	 ?these	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?	 ?Another	 ?support	 ?mechanism	 ?that	 ?is	 ?helpful	 ?is	 ?the	 ?networks	 ?that	 ?allow	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?share	 ?lessons	 ?and	 ?experiences.	 ?UBC	 ?highlighted	 ?that	 ?workshops	 ?it	 ?has	 ?hosted	 ?with	 ?several	 ?municipalities	 ? have	 ? benefitted	 ? all	 ? participants.	 ? Where	 ? it	 ? makes	 ? sense,	 ? more	 ? such	 ?fora	 ? or	 ? networks	 ? should	 ? be	 ? encouraged	 ? among	 ? post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ? and	 ?other	 ?PSOs,	 ?especially	 ?those	 ?facing	 ?similar	 ?challenges	 ?in	 ?developing	 ?or	 ?implementing	 ?emissions	 ?reduction	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 135	 ?6.5	 ? The	 ?Boundary	 ?Question	 ?6.5.1	 ? Expanding	 ?the	 ?Boundary	 ?Section	 ?2.4	 ?has	 ?earlier	 ?highlighted	 ?the	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?policy	 ?boundaries	 ?for	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate.	 ?While	 ? the	 ? current	 ? coverage	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? is	 ? a	 ? good	 ? start,	 ? it	 ?may	 ?be	 ? timely	 ?now,	 ?after	 ?3	 ?years	 ?of	 ? tracking	 ?PSO?s	 ?GHG	 ? inventory	 ?using	 ?SMARTTool,	 ? to	 ? consider	 ?extending	 ? the	 ? mandate?s	 ? coverage	 ? to	 ? include	 ? the	 ? reporting	 ? of	 ? more	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ?emissions.	 ? This	 ? expansion	 ? would	 ? enable	 ? the	 ? mandate	 ? to	 ? achieve	 ? a	 ? wider	 ? reach,	 ?thereby	 ? opening	 ? up	 ?more	 ? opportunities	 ? for	 ? emission	 ? reduction	 ? and	 ? greater	 ? scope	 ?for	 ?innovation	 ?both	 ?within	 ?and	 ?beyond	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector.	 ?Conversely,	 ?the	 ?omission	 ?of	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?PSOs?	 ?GHG	 ?inventories	 ?may	 ?leave	 ?a	 ?large	 ?gap	 ?in	 ?their	 ?overall	 ?GHG	 ?reduction	 ?potential.	 ?Arguably,	 ?while	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?contributes	 ?less	 ?than	 ?2%	 ?of	 ?the	 ?direct	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?BC,	 ?involving	 ?the	 ?PSO	 ?supply	 ?chain	 ?in	 ?GHG	 ?reductions	 ?may	 ? be	 ? an	 ? effective	 ? way	 ? of	 ? beginning	 ? to	 ? get	 ? the	 ? rest	 ? of	 ? BC	 ? involved	 ? in	 ? climate	 ?mitigation.	 ?By	 ?going	 ?beyond	 ?the	 ?boundaries	 ?of	 ?the	 ?current	 ?provincial	 ?mandate,	 ?many	 ?areas	 ?where	 ?PSOs	 ?can	 ?reduce	 ?emissions	 ?through	 ?their	 ?own	 ?planning,	 ?purchasing	 ?and	 ?contracting	 ? supply	 ? chains	 ? may	 ? be	 ? revealed.	 ? This	 ? will	 ? in	 ? turn	 ? unleash	 ? a	 ? powerful	 ?mechanism	 ? for	 ? creating	 ? a	 ? positive	 ? spillover	 ? from	 ? this	 ? mandate,	 ? spurring	 ? the	 ?greening	 ?of	 ?the	 ?supply	 ?chain	 ?far	 ?beyond	 ?the	 ?direct	 ?emissions	 ?of	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector.	 ?A	 ?policy	 ?adjustment	 ?that	 ?expands	 ?reporting	 ?to	 ?include	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?would	 ?also	 ? guard	 ? against	 ? PSOs	 ? choosing	 ? to	 ? reduce	 ? their	 ? Scope	 ? 1	 ? and	 ? 2	 ? emissions	 ? by	 ?contracting	 ?out	 ?services.	 ?By	 ?having	 ?to	 ?report	 ?Scope	 ?3	 ?emissions,	 ?the	 ?PSO	 ?would	 ?need	 ?to	 ? reveal	 ? the	 ? emission	 ? intensity	 ?of	 ? its	 ? contractors,	 ? thereby	 ? forcing	 ? contractors	 ?not	 ?only	 ?to	 ?report	 ?their	 ?emissions	 ?but	 ?also	 ?to	 ?try	 ?to	 ?reduce	 ?them.	 ?	 ?6.5.2	 ? Business	 ?Travel	 ?Emissions	 ?Under	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ?only	 ?core	 ?government	 ?ministries	 ?and	 ?agencies	 ?are	 ?required	 ?to	 ? report	 ? and	 ? offset	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ? business	 ? travel.	 ? CAS	 ? has	 ? reported	 ? that	 ? core	 ?	 ? 136	 ?government	 ? has	 ? reduced	 ? business	 ? travel	 ? emissions	 ? by	 ? 60%	 ? from	 ? 2008	 ? to	 ? 2009.	 ??This	 ? reduction	 ? is	 ? partially	 ? because	 ? of	 ? cutbacks	 ? in	 ? ministry	 ? travel	 ? budgets?.	 ?	 ?However	 ??the	 ?use	 ?of	 ?on-??line	 ?collaborative	 ?tools	 ?like	 ?LiveMeeting,	 ?Communicator	 ?and	 ?enhanced	 ?video-??conferencing?	 ?has	 ?mitigated	 ?the	 ?impact	 ?of	 ?such	 ?reduced	 ?travel	 ??on	 ?ministries?	 ?abilities	 ?to	 ?deliver	 ?public	 ?services.?	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2010)	 ?	 ?The	 ?reported	 ?drop	 ?in	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?2008	 ?to	 ?2009	 ?has	 ?not	 ?been	 ?verified	 ?by	 ?an	 ?in-??depth	 ? investigation.	 ?But	 ?actual	 ?business	 ? travel	 ?expenses	 ?by	 ?core	 ?government	 ?were	 ?cut	 ?by	 ?50%	 ?in	 ?FY2008/09,	 ?which	 ?coincided	 ?with	 ?a	 ?recession	 ? in	 ?BC,	 ?compared	 ? to	 ?a	 ?cut	 ? of	 ? only	 ? 8.5%	 ? in	 ? FY2001/02	 ? during	 ? the	 ? previous	 ? economic	 ? downturn.	 ? It	 ? is	 ?possible	 ? that	 ? the	 ? inclusion	 ? of	 ? business	 ? travel	 ? under	 ? CNG	 ? for	 ? the	 ? core	 ? government	 ?may	 ?have	 ?motivated	 ?a	 ?reduction	 ?in	 ?business	 ?travel	 ?and	 ?increased	 ?use	 ?of	 ?alternatives	 ?like	 ? on-??line	 ?meetings.	 ? However,	 ? it	 ? is	 ? also	 ? possible	 ? that	 ? travel	 ? expenses	 ? have	 ? been	 ?shifted	 ?to	 ?other	 ?cost	 ?accounts	 ?to	 ?avoid	 ?the	 ?requirement	 ?to	 ?purchase	 ?carbon	 ?offsets	 ?for	 ? business	 ? travel	 ? emissions,	 ? and	 ? this	 ? accounting	 ? ?leakage?	 ? out	 ? of	 ? the	 ? policy	 ?boundary	 ?has	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?a	 ?reduction	 ?in	 ?reported	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?business	 ?travel.	 ?	 ?	 ?Since	 ?2009,	 ?core	 ?government?s	 ?business	 ?travel	 ?emissions	 ?have	 ?been	 ?flat	 ?(See	 ?Figure	 ?6.1	 ?on	 ?the	 ?next	 ?page),	 ?even	 ?as	 ?total	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?the	 ?sector	 ?rose	 ?5.7%	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?to	 ?2012	 ?(Table	 ?4.3).	 ?	 ?	 ?If	 ? indeed	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? has	 ? influenced	 ? the	 ? core	 ? government	 ? to	 ? significantly	 ?reduce	 ?business	 ?travel	 ?without	 ?affecting	 ?effectiveness	 ?of	 ? its	 ?operations,	 ? it	 ?may	 ?also	 ?be	 ? feasible	 ? for	 ? other	 ? BC	 ? PSOs	 ? and	 ? local	 ? governments	 ? to	 ? similarly	 ? reduce	 ? their	 ?business	 ?travel	 ?through	 ?an	 ?expansion	 ?of	 ?the	 ?mandate	 ?to	 ?cover	 ?this	 ?category	 ?of	 ?scope	 ?3	 ? emissions.	 ? The	 ? New	 ? South	 ? Wales	 ? government	 ? in	 ? Australia	 ? already	 ? includes	 ?business	 ? travel	 ? emissions	 ? within	 ? its	 ? carbon	 ? neutrality	 ? coverage	 ? (Department	 ? of	 ?Environment	 ?&	 ?Climate	 ?Change,	 ?NSW	 ?Government	 ?2009).	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 137	 ?Figure	 ?6.1:	 ?Core	 ?Government	 ?Business	 ?Travel	 ?Emissions	 ?2008	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Sources:	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2010;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2011;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012d;	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013)	 ?6.5.3	 ? The	 ?Case	 ?of	 ?The	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?The	 ?GHG	 ?inventory	 ?of	 ?the	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?Vancouver	 ?Campus	 ?(UBC-??V)	 ? provides	 ? an	 ? interesting	 ? case	 ? that	 ? demonstrates	 ? the	 ? significance	 ? of	 ? assessing	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?relative	 ?to	 ?total	 ?emissions.	 ?In	 ?Table	 ?6.1	 ?on	 ?the	 ?next	 ?page,	 ?we	 ?note	 ?that	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate	 ? covers	 ? about	 ? 49%	 ? of	 ? UBC-??V?s	 ? total	 ? estimated	 ? emissions	 ? in	 ?2012.	 ? The	 ? only	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ? emissions	 ? covered	 ? under	 ? the	 ? mandate	 ? (i.e.,	 ? from	 ? paper	 ?usage)	 ?account	 ?for	 ?0.5%.	 ?A	 ?significant	 ?proportion	 ?of	 ?the	 ?remaining	 ?51%	 ?of	 ?emissions	 ?come	 ?from	 ?commuting	 ?(25%),	 ?staff	 ?and	 ?faculty	 ?travel	 ?(16%)	 ?and	 ?embodied	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?infrastructure	 ?(9%),	 ?which	 ?are	 ?not	 ?included	 ?in	 ?mandatory	 ?reporting	 ?or	 ?offsets	 ? .	 ?The	 ?percentage	 ?of	 ?total	 ?emissions	 ?not	 ?covered	 ?by	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?has	 ?0	 ?5,000	 ?10,000	 ?15,000	 ?20,000	 ?25,000	 ?30,000	 ?2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Emissions	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ?Year	 ?Business	 ?Travel	 ?Emissions	 ?	 ? 138	 ?increased	 ? from	 ?47%	 ? in	 ?2007	 ? to	 ?51%	 ? in	 ?2012.	 ?Moreover,	 ?while	 ?UBC-??V?s	 ? emissions	 ?covered	 ?by	 ?the	 ?mandate	 ?decreased	 ?0.6%	 ?from	 ?2007	 ?to	 ?2012,	 ?emissions	 ?not	 ?covered	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?17.5%	 ?(Please	 ?see	 ?Figure	 ?6.2	 ?on	 ?the	 ?following	 ?page).	 ?	 ?Table	 ?6.1:	 ?UBC	 ?Vancouver	 ?Campus	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?Inventory	 ?2012	 ?Scope	 ? Component	 ? GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?(tCO2e/yr)	 ? Covered	 ?in	 ?mandate?	 ?1	 ? Core	 ?Buildings	 ? 	 ?	 ?39,400	 ? Yes	 ?Other	 ?Buildings	 ? 	 ?	 ?14,215	 ? Yes	 ?Fleet	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?1,253	 ? Yes	 ?2	 ? Core	 ?Buildings	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?3,887	 ? Yes	 ?Other	 ?Buildings	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?1,389	 ? Yes	 ?3	 ? Paper	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?572	 ? Yes	 ?Staff	 ?and	 ?Faculty	 ?Travel	 ? 	 ?	 ?19,772	 ? No	 ?Solid	 ?Waste	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?1,930	 ? No	 ?Commuting	 ? 	 ?	 ?30,757	 ? No	 ?Building	 ?Lifecycle	 ? 	 ?	 ?11,705	 ? No	 ?Total	 ?estimated	 ?emissions	 ? 124,879	 ? 	 ?Total	 ? emissions	 ? covered	 ? by	 ? the	 ?mandate	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?60,715	 ?(49%)	 ? 	 ?Total	 ? emissions	 ? not	 ? covered	 ? by	 ? the	 ?mandate	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?64,164	 ?(51%)	 ? 	 ?Source:	 ?(University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?2013)	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 139	 ?Figure	 ?6.2:	 ?UBC?s	 ?In-??Scope	 ?vs.	 ?Out-??Of-??Scope	 ?GHG	 ?Emissions	 ?2007	 ??	 ?2012	 ?	 ?Source:	 ?(University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?2013)	 ?Although	 ?the	 ?challenges	 ?associated	 ?with	 ?estimating	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?mean	 ?that	 ?the	 ?figures	 ?in	 ?UBC?s	 ?inventory	 ?may	 ?not	 ?be	 ?as	 ?accurate	 ?as	 ?its	 ?scope	 ?1	 ?and	 ?2	 ?emissions,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?obvious	 ? that	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ? emissions	 ? comprise	 ? a	 ? very	 ? significant	 ? proportion	 ? of	 ? total	 ?emissions	 ?that	 ?UBC	 ?could	 ?potentially	 ?control	 ?or	 ?influence.	 ?However,	 ?as	 ?pointed	 ?out	 ?40,000	 ?45,000	 ?50,000	 ?55,000	 ?60,000	 ?65,000	 ?70,000	 ?2007	 ? 2008	 ? 2009	 ? 2010	 ? 2011	 ? 2012	 ?Emissions	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ?Year	 ?In-??Scope	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ? Out-??Of-??Scope	 ?(tonnes	 ?CO2e)	 ?Trendline	 ?-??	 ?In-??Scope	 ?Emissions	 ? Trendline	 ?-??	 ?Out-??Of-??Scope	 ?Emissions	 ?	 ? 140	 ?in	 ?the	 ?interviews,	 ?there	 ?is	 ?not	 ?as	 ?much	 ?emphasis	 ?and	 ?political	 ?will	 ?to	 ?manage	 ?these,	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?that	 ?for	 ?scope	 ?1	 ?and	 ?2	 ?emissions	 ?that	 ?are	 ?directly	 ?under	 ?UBC?s	 ?control	 ?and	 ?covered	 ?under	 ?CNG.	 ?	 ?The	 ?major	 ?actions	 ? that	 ?UBC	 ?has	 ?undertaken	 ?and	 ?continues	 ? to	 ?pursue	 ? illustrate	 ? the	 ?importance	 ?of	 ?exploring	 ?all	 ?options	 ?that	 ?can	 ?reduce	 ?not	 ?just	 ?scope	 ?1	 ?and	 ?2	 ?emissions,	 ?but	 ? also	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ? emissions.	 ? UBC	 ? has	 ? developed	 ? and	 ? is	 ? continuing	 ? to	 ? develop	 ?additional	 ? on-??campus	 ? housing	 ? for	 ? students	 ? and	 ? employees,	 ? which	 ? substantially	 ?reduces	 ?the	 ?number	 ?and	 ?proportion	 ?of	 ?persons	 ?who	 ?need	 ?to	 ?commute.	 ?Furthermore,	 ?a	 ?broad	 ?range	 ?of	 ? services	 ?and	 ?shops	 ?are	 ?now	 ?available	 ? in	 ?and	 ?around	 ? the	 ?campus,	 ?reducing	 ? the	 ? need	 ? for	 ? on-??campus	 ? and	 ? neighbouring	 ? households	 ? to	 ? travel.	 ? The	 ?average	 ? number	 ? of	 ? trips	 ? per	 ? person	 ? has	 ? decreased	 ? 14%	 ? from	 ? 1997	 ? to	 ? 2010.	 ? On-??campus	 ? housing,	 ? fewer	 ? parking	 ? spaces	 ? and	 ? greater	 ? use	 ? of	 ? the	 ? internet	 ? are	 ? all	 ?contributing	 ?factors	 ?to	 ?this	 ?change	 ?(University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?2011).	 ?Under	 ?the	 ?current	 ? regulations,	 ? these	 ? actions	 ? neither	 ? create	 ? credit	 ? to	 ? UBC	 ? for	 ? reducing	 ?commuting	 ? emissions	 ? nor	 ? credit	 ? for	 ? the	 ? smaller	 ? GHG	 ? footprint	 ? of	 ? more	 ? efficient	 ?housing	 ?on	 ?campus.	 ?Moreover,	 ?because	 ?the	 ?new	 ?housing	 ?is	 ?located	 ?on	 ?campus,	 ?their	 ?scope	 ? 1	 ? and	 ? 2	 ? emissions	 ? are	 ? reportable	 ? and	 ? create	 ? emission	 ? liabilities	 ? at	 ? $25	 ? per	 ?tonne	 ?of	 ?CO2e	 ?emitted.	 ?	 ?	 ?UBC	 ? is	 ? planning	 ? to	 ? further	 ? expand	 ? student	 ? housing	 ? on	 ? campus	 ? by	 ? 7,000	 ? beds	 ?(University	 ? of	 ? British	 ? Columbia	 ? 2012b).	 ? These	 ? will	 ? provide	 ? a	 ? host	 ? of	 ? benefits	 ? for	 ?students,	 ? but	 ? will	 ? also	 ? increase	 ? the	 ? ?local?	 ? scope	 ? 1	 ? and	 ? 2	 ? emissions	 ? under	 ? UBC?s	 ?current	 ? reporting	 ? mandate.	 ? Since	 ? all	 ? new	 ? residential	 ? construction	 ? at	 ? UBC	 ? must	 ?comply	 ?with	 ?the	 ?Residential	 ?Environmental	 ?Assessment	 ?Program	 ?(REAP)	 ?guidelines,	 ?housing	 ? at	 ? UBC	 ? will	 ? use	 ? approximately	 ? 15%	 ? less	 ? energy	 ? than	 ? Canada?s	 ? Model	 ?National	 ? Energy	 ? Code	 ? for	 ? Buildings	 ? (MNECB),	 ? which	 ? in	 ? itself	 ? outperforms	 ? all	 ?provincial	 ?building	 ?codes.	 ?As	 ?such,	 ?scope	 ?1	 ?and	 ?2	 ?emissions	 ?at	 ? the	 ?new	 ?on-??campus	 ?housing	 ? will	 ? be	 ? much	 ? lower	 ? compared	 ? to	 ? existing	 ? off-??campus	 ? housing	 ? that	 ? these	 ?	 ? 141	 ?students	 ?would	 ?otherwise	 ?rent.	 ?Moreover,	 ?commuting	 ?will	 ?be	 ?drastically	 ?reduced	 ?as	 ?a	 ? result	 ? of	 ? more	 ? students	 ? being	 ? accommodated	 ? on	 ? campus.	 ? An	 ? illustrative	 ?comparison	 ? of	 ? the	 ? impacts,	 ? similar	 ? to	 ? the	 ? one	 ? first	 ? used	 ? in	 ? (Lau	 ? and	 ?Dowlatabadi	 ?2011a)	 ?is	 ?given	 ?in	 ?Table	 ?6.2	 ?on	 ?the	 ?next	 ?page.	 ?	 ?The	 ?decrease	 ?in	 ?commuting	 ?by	 ?having	 ?7,000	 ?more	 ?students	 ?live	 ?on	 ?campus	 ?will	 ?cut	 ?scope	 ?3	 ?emissions	 ?by	 ?an	 ?estimated	 ?5,740	 ?tonnes	 ?of	 ?CO2e	 ?per	 ?year	 ?(0.82	 ?tonnes	 ?per	 ?student	 ? multiplied	 ? by	 ? 7,000	 ? students)	 ? or	 ? 17.1%	 ? of	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ? commuting.	 ?Overall,	 ? this	 ? initiative	 ?will	 ? cut	 ? BC?s	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? by	 ? over	 ? 7,210	 ? tonnes	 ? per	 ? year	 ?(1.03	 ? tonnes	 ? per	 ? student	 ? multiplied	 ? by	 ? 7,000	 ? students).	 ? 	 ? However,	 ? the	 ? current	 ?boundary	 ? setting	 ? changes	 ? what	 ? should	 ? be	 ? a	 ? net	 ? GHG	 ? reduction	 ? credit	 ? of	 ? 7,210	 ?tonnes	 ?per	 ?year	 ?into	 ?a	 ?4,410	 ?tonnes	 ?per	 ?year	 ?penalty	 ?resulting	 ?in	 ?an	 ?additional	 ?offset	 ?liability	 ?of	 ?$110,250	 ?per	 ?year	 ?due	 ?to	 ?the	 ?extra	 ?scope	 ?1	 ?and	 ?2	 ?emissions	 ?on	 ?campus.	 ?The	 ? overall	 ? economic	 ? disincentive	 ? to	 ? UBC	 ? for	 ? housing	 ? these	 ? 7,000	 ? students	 ? on	 ?campus	 ?(by	 ?summing	 ?the	 ?additional	 ?offset	 ? liability	 ?and	 ?the	 ? foregone	 ?credit)	 ?would	 ?be	 ? about	 ? $290,500	 ? per	 ? year.	 ? Thus,	 ? the	 ? current	 ? reporting	 ? boundaries	 ? discourage	 ?initiatives	 ?like	 ?this	 ?that	 ?result	 ?in	 ?a	 ?reduction	 ?of	 ?overall	 ?provincial	 ?emissions5.	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ?5	 ?The	 ? reduction	 ? in	 ? overall	 ? emissions	 ? is	 ? even	 ? more	 ? significant	 ? when	 ? we	 ? take	 ? into	 ?account	 ? the	 ? increase	 ? in	 ? faculty,	 ? staff	 ? and	 ? family	 ? members,	 ? as	 ? well	 ? as	 ? other	 ?residents,	 ?who	 ?will	 ?be	 ?housed	 ? in	 ?both	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?private	 ? residential	 ?developments	 ?within	 ?these	 ?new	 ?campus	 ?neighbourhoods.	 ?	 ? 142	 ?Table	 ?6.2:	 ?Comparison	 ?of	 ? Impacts	 ? from	 ?UBC	 ?Students	 ?Living	 ?Off-??Campus	 ?and	 ?On-??Campus	 ?	 ? Living	 ?Off	 ?Campus	 ? Living	 ?On	 ?Campus	 ? Remarks	 ?Residential	 ?emissions	 ?per	 ?student	 ?(tonnes/year)	 ?[a]	 ? 0.84	 ? 0.63	 ? See	 ?note	 ?(i).	 ?Commuting	 ?emissions	 ?per	 ?student	 ?(tonnes/year)	 ?[b]	 ? 0.82	 ? 0	 ? See	 ?note	 ?(ii).	 ?Actual	 ?emissions	 ?(tonnes/year)	 ?[a+b]	 ? 1.66	 ? 0.63	 ? Accounting	 ? for	 ? all	 ? emissions	 ? within	 ?the	 ? province.	 ? Emissions	 ? are	 ? actually	 ?reduced	 ?by	 ?1.03	 ?tonnes/year	 ?for	 ?each	 ?student	 ? living	 ? on-??campus	 ? vs.	 ? off-??campus.	 ?Emissions	 ?under	 ?current	 ?reporting	 ?(tonnes/year)	 ? 0	 ? 0.63	 ? Only	 ? scope	 ? 1	 ? and	 ? 2	 ? emissions	 ? are	 ?currently	 ?included.	 ?Current	 ?offset	 ?liability	 ?per	 ?student	 ? 0	 ? $	 ?15.75	 ? To	 ? be	 ? paid	 ? by	 ? UBC	 ? to	 ? PCT,	 ? at	 ?$25/tonne.	 ?Proposed	 ?offset	 ?liability	 ?per	 ?student	 ? 0	 ? -??	 ?$	 ?25.75	 ?	 ? Proposed	 ? credit	 ? for	 ? reduction	 ? of	 ?overall	 ? emissions	 ? by	 ? 1.03	 ?tonnes/year.	 ?Notes:	 ?(i) Based	 ?on	 ?residential	 ?sector	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?Table	 ?4	 ?of	 ?the	 ?BC	 ?GHG	 ?Inventory	 ?Report	 ?2010	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012e),	 ?BC?s	 ?population	 ?in	 ?2010	 ?(Statistics	 ?Canada	 ?2013),	 ?and	 ?assuming	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?UBC	 ?on-??campus	 ?housing	 ?are	 ?75%	 ?of	 ?the	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?the	 ?average	 ?BC	 ?housing.	 ?(ii) Based	 ?on	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?commuting	 ?(33,540	 ?tonnes)	 ?in	 ?UBC?s	 ?2010	 ?GHG	 ?inventory	 ?(University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia	 ?2013)	 ?and	 ?commuting	 ?population	 ?of	 ?41,000	 ?which	 ?is	 ?the	 ?FTE	 ?enrolment	 ?in	 ?2010	 ?from	 ?UBC	 ?Planning	 ?&	 ?Institutional	 ?Research	 ?(http://www.pair.ubc.ca/statistics/students/students.htm).	 ?	 ?	 ?6.5.4	 ? Cost	 ?of	 ?Expanding	 ?Mandate	 ?Coverage	 ?The	 ? cost	 ? of	 ? creating	 ? the	 ? more	 ? complete	 ? GHG	 ? inventory	 ? at	 ? UBC	 ? is	 ? zero,	 ? as	 ? the	 ?previous	 ? inventory	 ? completed	 ? in	 ? 2008	 ? and	 ? updated	 ? since	 ? then	 ? already	 ? reflects	 ? a	 ?wide	 ? range	 ? of	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ? emissions.	 ? 	 ? The	 ? cost	 ? of	 ? having	 ? other	 ? organizations	 ? expand	 ?	 ? 143	 ?their	 ? reporting	 ? from	 ? their	 ? current	 ? boundaries	 ? to	 ? include	 ? a	 ?wide	 ? range	 ? of	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ?emissions	 ?is	 ?estimated	 ?to	 ?be	 ?between	 ?1	 ?to	 ?5	 ?thousand	 ?dollars	 ?depending	 ?on	 ?the	 ?size	 ?and	 ?complexity	 ?of	 ?the	 ?organization.	 ?	 ?An	 ?alternative	 ?for	 ?such	 ?organizations	 ?is	 ?to	 ?market	 ?their	 ?innovative	 ?GHG	 ?reductions	 ?beyond	 ?the	 ?scope	 ?of	 ?the	 ?BC	 ?government	 ?mandate	 ?as	 ?carbon	 ?offsets.	 ?	 ?However,	 ?such	 ?an	 ?action	 ?not	 ?only	 ?requires	 ?the	 ? incremental	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?an	 ? inventory	 ?or	 ?audit,	 ? it	 ?would	 ?also	 ? incur	 ?validation	 ?and	 ?verification	 ?costs	 ?of	 ?at	 ? least	 ?$5,000	 ?and	 ?transaction	 ?costs	 ?for	 ? the	 ?offsets	 ?at	 ?$5	 ?per	 ? tonne	 ?or	 ?more.	 ? 	 ?Thus,	 ?while	 ? the	 ?offset	 ?route	 ? is	 ?potentially	 ?available	 ? to	 ? government	 ? organizations	 ? who	 ? have	 ? innovative	 ? GHG	 ? reduction	 ?strategies	 ? that	 ? cannot	 ? be	 ? captured	 ? under	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate,	 ? the	 ? cost	 ? of	 ? realizing	 ?these	 ? initiatives	 ? are	 ? far	 ?higher	 ? and	 ?prohibitively	 ? so	 ? for	 ? all	 ? but	 ? the	 ? largest	 ?projects	 ?(greater	 ?than	 ?1,000	 ?tonnes	 ?per	 ?year).	 ?	 ?In	 ?2012,	 ?UBC	 ?made	 ?a	 ?proposal	 ?to	 ?the	 ?PCT	 ?for	 ?a	 ?programmatic	 ?offset	 ?approach	 ?where	 ?a	 ? coordinated	 ? action	 ? results	 ? in	 ? numerous,	 ? smaller	 ? widely	 ? distributed	 ? emission	 ?reduction	 ?activities,	 ?such	 ?as	 ?the	 ?example	 ?of	 ?policies	 ?that	 ?influence	 ?staff	 ?and	 ?student	 ?commuting	 ?to	 ?and	 ?from	 ?UBC.	 ?The	 ?proposal	 ?was,	 ?however,	 ?not	 ?taken	 ?up	 ?by	 ?PCT.	 ?	 ?6.6	 ? Limitations	 ?6.6.1	 ? Effect	 ?and	 ?Attribution	 ?This	 ? research	 ? is	 ? not	 ? a	 ? controlled	 ? experiment,	 ? but	 ? an	 ? evaluation	 ? of	 ? a	 ? natural	 ?experiment,	 ?a	 ?contemporary	 ?phenomenon	 ?within	 ?some	 ?real-??life	 ?context	 ?(Yin	 ?2009),	 ?to	 ?which	 ?the	 ?researcher	 ?has	 ?no	 ?control.	 ?In	 ?particular,	 ?changes	 ?in	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?may	 ?result	 ? from	 ? many	 ? possible	 ? factors,	 ? including	 ? the	 ? level	 ? of	 ? activity,	 ? changes	 ? in	 ? the	 ?stock	 ?of	 ?physical	 ?infrastructure,	 ?variations	 ?in	 ?weather,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?policy	 ?changes.	 ?As	 ?noted	 ? in	 ?another	 ? study,	 ? it	 ? is	 ? challenging	 ? to	 ?accurately	 ? identify	 ? the	 ?GHG	 ?reductions	 ?	 ? 144	 ?that	 ? result	 ? specifically	 ? from	 ? information	 ? and	 ? outreach	 ? programmes	 ? without	 ?confounding	 ?effects	 ?(Nancy	 ?Olewiler	 ?2012).	 ?	 ?	 ?Soon	 ?after	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?was	 ?announced,	 ?BC,	 ?like	 ?the	 ?rest	 ?of	 ?the	 ?world,	 ?entered	 ?a	 ?period	 ?of	 ? economic	 ? recession.	 ?Although	 ?BC?s	 ? economy	 ?bounced	 ?back	 ? somewhat	 ? in	 ?2010,	 ? its	 ?growth	 ?rate	 ? is	 ?still	 ?relatively	 ?mild.	 ?The	 ?recession	 ?and	 ?consequent	 ?drop	 ?in	 ?economic	 ?activity,	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ?enforced	 ?austerity	 ?in	 ?government	 ?budgets	 ?compared	 ?to	 ?previous	 ? years,	 ? could	 ? partly	 ? explain	 ? an	 ? added	 ? focus	 ? on	 ? reducing	 ? energy	 ?consumption	 ? to	 ? lower	 ? operational	 ? expenses,	 ? leading	 ? to	 ? a	 ? reduction	 ? in	 ? GHG	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?2008	 ?to	 ?2010.	 ?	 ?In	 ? this	 ? study,	 ? there	 ? is	 ? another	 ? real	 ? challenge	 ? to	 ? separate	 ? the	 ? impacts	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?mandate	 ? from	 ?that	 ?of	 ? the	 ?carbon	 ? tax.	 ?Both	 ? the	 ?carbon	 ? tax	 ?and	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?were	 ?announced	 ?at	 ? the	 ?same	 ? time	 ?as	 ?part	 ?of	 ? the	 ?provincial	 ?government?s	 ? climate	 ?action	 ?plan	 ? (Ministry	 ? of	 ? Environment,	 ? B.C.	 ? 2008),	 ? although	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? was	 ?implemented	 ? first	 ? in	 ? July	 ?2008.	 ?From	 ?2010	 ? to	 ?2012,	 ?both	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ?and	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?exist	 ?concurrently	 ?and	 ?probably	 ? influence	 ?the	 ?decisions	 ?and	 ?behaviour	 ?of	 ?PSOs.	 ? Most	 ? interviewees	 ? who	 ? responded	 ? to	 ? the	 ? question	 ? of	 ? whether	 ? their	 ?organization	 ? differentiated	 ? between	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? and	 ? CNG	 ? did	 ? not	 ? think	 ? that	 ?decision-??makers	 ?make	 ? a	 ? distinction	 ? between	 ? them.	 ? To	 ? them,	 ? they	 ? are	 ? part	 ? of	 ? the	 ?additional	 ? cost	 ? the	 ? organization	 ? must	 ? pay	 ? for	 ? emissions.	 ? In	 ? business	 ? case	 ?evaluations,	 ?the	 ?cost	 ?of	 ?carbon	 ?tax	 ?and	 ?carbon	 ?offsets	 ?are	 ?added	 ?together	 ?from	 ?2010	 ?onwards,	 ?although	 ?assumptions	 ?regarding	 ?changes	 ?in	 ?their	 ?rates	 ?may	 ?differ.	 ?	 ?	 ?Hence,	 ? even	 ? though	 ? changes	 ? in	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ? the	 ? BC	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? or	 ?individual	 ?public	 ?organizations	 ?are	 ?observed	 ?over	 ?the	 ?period	 ?of	 ?study,	 ?they	 ?may	 ?not	 ?be	 ? caused	 ? by	 ? the	 ? policies	 ? in	 ? place,	 ? such	 ? as	 ? the	 ? carbon	 ? tax	 ? or	 ? CNG	 ? mandate.	 ? As	 ?discussed	 ?earlier	 ? in	 ?this	 ?chapter,	 ? there	 ?are	 ?many	 ?factors	 ?that	 ?decision-??makers	 ?take	 ?into	 ?consideration	 ?in	 ?deciding	 ?on	 ?an	 ?infrastructure	 ?project.	 ?While	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?	 ? 145	 ?may	 ?have	 ?influenced	 ?the	 ?decision	 ?on	 ?certain	 ?projects	 ?in	 ?favour	 ?of	 ?those	 ?that	 ?would	 ?lead	 ?to	 ?emission	 ?reductions,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?impossible	 ?to	 ?attribute	 ?any	 ?one	 ?project	 ?or	 ?any	 ?one	 ?decision	 ?to	 ?the	 ?mandate.	 ?	 ?	 ?6.6.2	 ? Small	 ?Sample	 ?Size	 ?The	 ? sample	 ? size	 ? for	 ? this	 ? study	 ? is	 ? small.	 ? Due	 ? to	 ? the	 ? overall	 ? resource	 ? and	 ? time	 ?constraint	 ? for	 ? this	 ? study,	 ? as	 ?well	 ? as	 ? lack	 ? of	 ? response	 ? from	 ? smaller	 ? post-??secondary	 ?institutions	 ? as	 ? case	 ? studies,	 ? only	 ? 4	 ? institutions	 ? were	 ? included	 ? in	 ? this	 ? study	 ? and	 ?interviews	 ?were	 ? conducted	 ? for	 ? only	 ? 2	 ? of	 ? these	 ? institutions.	 ? Other	 ? post-??secondary	 ?institutions	 ? in	 ? the	 ? Lower	 ?Mainland,	 ? including	 ? BCIT,	 ? Langara	 ? College	 ? and	 ? Capilano	 ?University	 ?were	 ? also	 ? approached	 ? to	 ? be	 ? case	 ? studies,	 ? but	 ? none	 ? of	 ? them	 ? responded	 ?positively.	 ?The	 ?limited	 ?number	 ?of	 ?interviews	 ?conducted	 ?at	 ?only	 ?2	 ?organizations	 ?is	 ?a	 ?weakness	 ?of	 ?this	 ?study.	 ?	 ?A	 ? strength	 ?of	 ? the	 ? study,	 ? however,	 ? is	 ? that	 ?because	 ? the	 ? events	 ? and	 ?actions	 ? taken	 ?by	 ?organizations	 ?in	 ?response	 ?to	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?are	 ?either	 ?recent	 ?or	 ?still	 ?happening,	 ?most	 ? of	 ? the	 ? interviewees	 ? are	 ? themselves	 ? the	 ? key	 ? players,	 ? have	 ? been	 ? and	 ? are	 ?intimately	 ? involved	 ? and	 ? therefore	 ?have	 ?personal	 ? knowledge	 ? and	 ?understanding	 ?of	 ?the	 ?rationale	 ?behind	 ?the	 ?events	 ?and	 ?actions.	 ?As	 ?such,	 ?the	 ?interviews	 ?conducted	 ?with	 ?UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU	 ? are	 ? very	 ? useful,	 ? and	 ? the	 ? interviewees	 ? were	 ? open	 ? and	 ? helpful	 ? in	 ?answering	 ? all	 ? the	 ? questions	 ? posed	 ? to	 ? them,	 ? to	 ? the	 ? best	 ? of	 ? their	 ? knowledge.	 ? The	 ?responses	 ?of	 ?interviewees	 ?from	 ?UBC	 ?and	 ?SFU	 ?are	 ?also	 ?sufficiently	 ?diverse	 ?to	 ?provide	 ?very	 ?rich	 ?and	 ?nuanced	 ? information,	 ? thus	 ?offering	 ?some	 ?valuable	 ? insights	 ?about	 ? the	 ?challenges	 ? faced	 ? by	 ? the	 ? two	 ? organizations	 ? and	 ? the	 ? different	 ? ways	 ? they	 ? chose	 ? to	 ?respond.	 ?	 ?	 ?As	 ?for	 ?the	 ?potential	 ?benefit	 ?of	 ?interviewing	 ?personnel	 ?from	 ?the	 ?smaller	 ?institutions	 ?such	 ?as	 ?DO	 ?and	 ?VCC,	 ?based	 ?on	 ? the	 ? short	 ? list	 ? of	 ? actions	 ? taken	 ?by	 ?DO	 ?and	 ?VCC,	 ? it	 ? is	 ?	 ? 146	 ?anticipated	 ?that	 ?even	 ?if	 ?interviews	 ?were	 ?conducted	 ?with	 ?them,	 ?the	 ?answers	 ?may	 ?not	 ?have	 ?been	 ?drastically	 ?different	 ?from	 ?that	 ?of	 ?SFU.	 ?	 ?6.6.3	 ? Short	 ?Time	 ?Period	 ?The	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? is	 ? a	 ? relatively	 ? new	 ? programme	 ? and	 ? is	 ? still	 ? evolving,	 ? as	 ? early	 ?lessons	 ?are	 ? learnt	 ?and	 ?applied.	 ?Given	 ? that	 ? the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ? is	 ? in	 ? its	 ?early	 ?stage	 ?of	 ?implementation,	 ?with	 ? GHG	 ? accounting	 ? and	 ?monitoring	 ? being	 ? new	 ? to	 ? all	 ? but	 ? a	 ? few	 ?PSOs,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?not	 ?surprising	 ?that	 ?there	 ?is	 ?a	 ?scarcity	 ?of	 ?available	 ?data,	 ?especially	 ?on	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ? The	 ? emissions	 ? data	 ? that	 ? is	 ? available	 ? covers	 ? only	 ? 3	 ? years,	 ? which	 ? is	 ? not	 ?sufficient	 ? to	 ? enable	 ? us	 ? to	 ? discern	 ? trends	 ? in	 ? these	 ? emissions,	 ? as	 ? there	 ? are	 ? large	 ?variations	 ? between	 ? organizations	 ? and	 ? sectors.	 ? Some	 ? of	 ? the	 ? organizations	 ? have	 ?emissions	 ?data	 ?over	 ?a	 ?longer	 ?period	 ?of	 ?time,	 ?but	 ?data	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?2007	 ?are	 ?likely	 ?to	 ?be	 ?incomplete	 ? and	 ? based	 ? on	 ? different	 ? assumptions,	 ? which	 ?makes	 ? comparison	 ? across	 ?organizations	 ?and	 ?over	 ?time	 ?a	 ?hazardous	 ?task.	 ?	 ?	 ?Energy	 ?consumption	 ?data,	 ? in	 ?general,	 ?have	 ?been	 ?kept	 ?over	 ?a	 ? longer	 ?period	 ?of	 ?time.	 ?Again	 ?there	 ?are	 ?questions	 ?of	 ?data	 ?comprehensiveness,	 ?since	 ?this	 ?was	 ?not	 ?necessarily	 ?a	 ?high	 ?priority	 ? in	 ?the	 ?past.	 ? Institutions	 ?may	 ?not	 ?have	 ?kept	 ?complete	 ?records	 ? for	 ?all	 ?owned	 ? and	 ? leased	 ? properties,	 ? especially	 ? properties	 ? that	 ? are	 ? outside	 ? their	 ? main	 ?campuses.	 ? Other	 ? organizations	 ? may	 ? also	 ? not	 ? be	 ? willing	 ? to	 ? reveal	 ? details	 ? of	 ? their	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?in	 ?the	 ?public	 ?domain.	 ?	 ?	 ?6.6.4	 ? Potential	 ?Bias	 ?and	 ?Self-??Selection	 ?Efforts	 ? have	 ? been	 ? taken	 ? to	 ? identify	 ? the	 ?most	 ? relevant	 ? stakeholders	 ? and	 ? personnel	 ?involved	 ?in	 ?implementing	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?and	 ?the	 ?infrastructure	 ?decision-??making	 ?process.	 ? The	 ? key	 ? personnel	 ? in	 ? the	 ? case	 ? study	 ? organizations	 ? were	 ? also	 ? asked	 ? to	 ?suggest	 ?other	 ?relevant	 ? interviewees.	 ?A	 ? few	 ?potential	 ? interviewees	 ? identified	 ? in	 ? the	 ?UBC	 ?organization	 ?did	 ?not	 ?respond	 ?to	 ?the	 ?request	 ?for	 ?interview.	 ?However,	 ?it	 ?is	 ?judged	 ?	 ? 147	 ?that	 ?adequate	 ?coverage	 ?of	 ?the	 ?topics	 ?has	 ?been	 ?achieved	 ?with	 ?those	 ?that	 ?are	 ?actually	 ?interviewed.	 ?	 ?	 ?However,	 ?the	 ?eventual	 ?list	 ?of	 ?personnel	 ?from	 ?the	 ?case	 ?study	 ?organizations	 ?who	 ?are	 ?interviewed	 ?may	 ?be	 ?subjected	 ?to	 ?bias	 ?and	 ?self-??selection.	 ?It	 ?is	 ?possible	 ?that	 ?those	 ?who	 ?agreed	 ?to	 ?be	 ?interviewed	 ?may	 ?already	 ?have	 ?a	 ?positive	 ?inclination	 ?towards	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ?while	 ?those	 ?who	 ?declined	 ?may	 ?not	 ?have	 ?such	 ?a	 ?positive	 ?inclination	 ?or	 ?have	 ?a	 ?negative	 ? inclination	 ? towards	 ? the	 ?mandate.	 ? It	 ? is	 ?noted	 ? that	 ? the	 ? interviewees	 ? from	 ?UBC	 ? were	 ? unanimously	 ? supportive	 ? of	 ? UBC?s	 ? efforts	 ? in	 ? climate	 ? mitigation	 ? and	 ?generally	 ? positive	 ? regarding	 ? the	 ? impact	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate.	 ? In	 ? contrast,	 ? most	 ?interviewees	 ?from	 ?SFU	 ?have	 ?some	 ?reservation	 ?about	 ?the	 ?mandate,	 ?although	 ?they	 ?are	 ?conscious	 ? of	 ? its	 ? beneficial	 ? impacts	 ? in	 ? advancing	 ? the	 ? sustainability	 ? and	 ? energy	 ?conservation	 ?agenda.	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 148	 ?7.	 ? Conclusion	 ?7.1	 ? Effectiveness	 ?of	 ?CNG	 ?Mandate	 ?This	 ? study	 ? has	 ? evaluated	 ? the	 ? effectiveness	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? in	 ? terms	 ? of	 ? its	 ?influence	 ? on	 ? decision-??making	 ? for	 ? emissions	 ? reduction	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? and	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?PSO?s	 ?GHG	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?The	 ?study	 ?has	 ?found	 ?that	 ?the	 ?mandating	 ?of	 ? ?carbon	 ?neutrality?	 ?for	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?and	 ?setting	 ?of	 ?a	 ?price	 ?for	 ?carbon	 ?emissions	 ?have	 ?generally	 ?made	 ?it	 ?easier	 ?for	 ?the	 ?case	 ?study	 ?PSOs	 ? to	 ?propose	 ?and	 ? justify	 ? infrastructure	 ?projects,	 ?by	 ? tilting	 ? the	 ?balance	 ? in	 ?business	 ? case	 ? evaluations	 ? in	 ? favour	 ? of	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? drastically	 ? reduce	 ? emissions.	 ?The	 ?provincial	 ? requirement	 ? for	 ? LEED-??Gold	 ? certification	 ? for	 ? all	 ?major	 ?public	 ? sector	 ?new	 ?construction	 ?and	 ?renovation	 ?has	 ?also	 ?set	 ?a	 ?minimum	 ?standard	 ?that	 ?helps	 ?raise	 ?energy	 ? efficiency	 ? of	 ? buildings	 ? over	 ? time.	 ? An	 ? increase	 ? in	 ? awareness	 ? and	 ?communication	 ? among	 ? major	 ? stakeholders	 ? and	 ? higher	 ? priority	 ? given	 ? to	 ? energy	 ?efficiency	 ?and	 ?climate	 ?change	 ?action	 ?have	 ?contributed	 ?to	 ?some	 ?institutional	 ?changes	 ?that	 ?may	 ?provide	 ?an	 ?added	 ?push	 ?to	 ?these	 ?efforts	 ?in	 ?some	 ?organizations.	 ?	 ?But	 ?the	 ?major	 ?constraint	 ?that	 ?hinders	 ?such	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?remains	 ?the	 ?lack	 ?of	 ?funding.	 ?Where	 ?PSOs	 ?have	 ?internal	 ?funding,	 ?or	 ?were	 ?able	 ?to	 ?obtain	 ?funds	 ?with	 ?the	 ?help	 ? of	 ? PSECA,	 ? other	 ? provincial	 ? or	 ? federal	 ? government	 ? grants	 ? or	 ? third	 ? party	 ?financing,	 ?they	 ?were	 ?able	 ?to	 ?proceed	 ?with	 ?these	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects.	 ?Otherwise,	 ?PSOs	 ? have	 ? to	 ? rely	 ? on	 ? their	 ? operational	 ? budget	 ? to	 ? fund	 ? small	 ? energy	 ? efficiency	 ? or	 ?retrofit	 ? projects.	 ? The	 ? channeling	 ? of	 ? offset	 ?money	 ? from	 ?PSOs	 ? and	 ? out	 ? of	 ? the	 ? public	 ?sector	 ? further	 ? compounds	 ? the	 ? difficulty	 ? of	 ? finding	 ? funds	 ? within	 ? their	 ? tight	 ?operational	 ?budgets	 ?for	 ?such	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?	 ? 149	 ?Support	 ?mechanisms	 ?provided	 ?by	 ? the	 ?provincial	 ?government	 ?or	 ?other	 ?government	 ?agencies,	 ? while	 ? helpful,	 ? are	 ? not	 ? critical	 ? driving	 ? forces	 ? in	 ? decision-??making	 ? on	 ?infrastructure	 ? projects.	 ? Nonetheless,	 ? the	 ? learning	 ? among	 ? PSOs	 ? and	 ? other	 ? public	 ?organizations	 ? like	 ? municipalities	 ? have	 ? benefited	 ? all	 ? participants	 ? and	 ? should	 ? be	 ?further	 ?encouraged.	 ?	 ?Given	 ? the	 ? long	 ? lead	 ? time	 ? and	 ? large	 ? capital	 ? outlay	 ? often	 ? required	 ? for	 ? major	 ?infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? can	 ? transform	 ? an	 ? organization?s	 ? GHG	 ? profile,	 ? and	 ? the	 ?limited	 ? amount	 ? of	 ? funding	 ? made	 ? available	 ? to	 ? PSOs	 ? for	 ? emissions	 ? reduction	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects,	 ? it	 ? is	 ?not	 ?surprising	 ?that	 ?available	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?data	 ? from	 ?the	 ?public	 ? sector	 ?as	 ? a	 ?whole	 ?have	 ?not	 ? shown	 ?significant	 ? reduction	 ?over	 ? the	 ? first	 ?3	 ?years	 ? that	 ? PSOs	 ? have	 ? had	 ? to	 ? purchase	 ? offsets	 ? for	 ? their	 ? emissions.	 ? However,	 ? some	 ?PSOs	 ?have	 ?already	 ?been	 ?able	 ?to	 ?drastically	 ?reduce	 ?their	 ?emissions	 ?over	 ?this	 ?period,	 ?partly	 ?owing	 ?to	 ?projects	 ?and	 ?efforts	 ?taken	 ?prior	 ?to	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate.	 ?Several	 ?other	 ?PSOs	 ? that	 ?managed	 ? to	 ? proceed	 ?with	 ?major	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? during	 ? the	 ? past	 ?few	 ?years	 ?should	 ?see	 ?their	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?being	 ?reduced	 ?within	 ?the	 ?next	 ?few	 ?years.	 ?	 ?	 ?7.2	 ? Potential	 ?Applications	 ?and	 ?Significance	 ?of	 ?Research	 ?The	 ?commitment	 ?to	 ?a	 ??carbon	 ?neutral?	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?is	 ?one	 ?of	 ?the	 ?key	 ?pillars	 ?of	 ?the	 ?BC	 ?government?s	 ? aggressive	 ? plan	 ? to	 ? project	 ? a	 ? leadership	 ? position	 ? on	 ? climate	 ? change	 ?action.	 ? The	 ? CNG	 ?mandate,	 ? in	 ? effect,	 ? puts	 ? a	 ? price	 ? on	 ? the	 ? remaining	 ? GHG	 ? emissions	 ?that	 ?PSOs	 ?are	 ?unable	 ?to	 ?reduce.	 ?This	 ?large	 ?present	 ?and	 ?future	 ?liability	 ?seems	 ?to	 ?have	 ?spurred	 ? action	 ? on	 ? the	 ? part	 ? of	 ? some	 ? PSOs	 ? to	 ? work	 ? towards	 ? reducing	 ? their	 ? GHG	 ?emissions,	 ? especially	 ? when	 ? they	 ? consider	 ? infrastructure	 ? projects	 ? that	 ? will	 ? have	 ? a	 ?significant	 ?and	 ?lasting	 ?impact	 ?on	 ?their	 ?future	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?This	 ?study	 ?has	 ?provided	 ?a	 ?systematic	 ?evaluation	 ?of	 ?the	 ?impacts	 ?of	 ?the	 ?mandate	 ?and	 ?offered	 ? some	 ? insights	 ? on	 ? its	 ? influence	 ? on	 ? infrastructure	 ? investments	 ? by	 ? post-??	 ? 150	 ?secondary	 ? institutions.	 ? It	 ? has	 ? highlighted	 ? some	 ? possible	 ? strategies	 ? that	 ? the	 ? case	 ?study	 ? PSOs	 ? have	 ? adopted,	 ? which	 ? other	 ? PSOs	 ? can	 ? explore	 ? in	 ? their	 ? quest	 ? for	 ? more	 ?funds	 ?to	 ?invest	 ?in	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ?will	 ?help	 ?them	 ?to	 ?significantly	 ?reduce	 ?their	 ? emissions.	 ? The	 ? lessons	 ? learnt	 ? from	 ? this	 ? evaluation	 ? are	 ? likely	 ? to	 ? be	 ? useful	 ? in	 ?helping	 ? to	 ? improve	 ? and	 ? fine-??tune	 ? the	 ? policy	 ? in	 ? BC,	 ? especially	 ? as	 ? PSOs	 ? and	 ? local	 ?governments	 ?continue	 ?to	 ?face	 ?the	 ?challenge	 ?of	 ?reducing	 ?their	 ?carbon	 ?emissions.	 ?	 ?	 ?The	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?also	 ?has	 ?potential	 ? impacts	 ? far	 ?beyond	 ?the	 ?core	 ?government	 ?and	 ?PSOs	 ? covered	 ? by	 ? the	 ? mandate.	 ? By	 ? helping	 ? to	 ? improve	 ? our	 ? understanding	 ? of	 ? the	 ?decision	 ? processes	 ? and	 ? trade-??offs	 ? faced	 ? by	 ? these	 ? PSOs,	 ? and	 ? pointing	 ? out	 ?implementation	 ? difficulties	 ? encountered	 ? during	 ? the	 ? first	 ? few	 ? years,	 ? this	 ? study	 ? can	 ?inform	 ? future	 ? policy	 ? design	 ? to	 ? avoid	 ? pitfalls	 ? encountered	 ? here	 ? and	 ? enhance	 ? its	 ?effectiveness	 ? in	 ? mitigating	 ? climate	 ? change.	 ? It	 ? can	 ? also	 ? help	 ? strengthen	 ? support	 ?mechanisms,	 ? including	 ? educational	 ? and	 ? capacity-??building	 ? strategies,	 ? so	 ? that	 ? PSOs	 ?are	 ?provided	 ?with	 ?the	 ?assistance	 ?and	 ?tools	 ?they	 ?need.	 ?The	 ?insights	 ?gathered	 ?will	 ?also	 ?be	 ?very	 ?useful,	 ? if	 ? and	 ?when	 ?a	 ? similar	 ?mandate	 ? is	 ? extended	 ? to	 ?or	 ?adopted	 ?by	 ?other	 ?organizations,	 ?sectors	 ?or	 ?jurisdictions.	 ?	 ?7.3	 ? Policy	 ?Recommendations	 ?7.3.1	 ? Provision	 ?of	 ?Funds	 ?for	 ?Infrastructure	 ?Following	 ?from	 ?the	 ?conclusions	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Section	 ?7.1,	 ?if	 ?the	 ?BC	 ?provincial	 ?government	 ?is	 ?serious	 ? about	 ? climate	 ? change	 ? action	 ? and	 ?want	 ? to	 ? help	 ? PSOs,	 ? it	 ? needs	 ? to	 ? set	 ? aside	 ?more	 ?funds	 ?in	 ?its	 ?annual	 ?budget	 ?to	 ?enable	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?undertake	 ?infrastructure	 ?projects	 ?that	 ? will	 ? transform	 ? their	 ? emissions	 ? profile.	 ? The	 ? government	 ? has	 ? already	 ? made	 ? a	 ?start	 ?with	 ?PSECA	 ?from	 ?2008	 ?to	 ?2011,	 ?but	 ?much	 ?more	 ?needs	 ?to	 ?be	 ?provided.	 ?	 ?	 ? 151	 ?Another	 ?way	 ?to	 ?channel	 ?funds	 ?to	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?is	 ?to	 ?take	 ?back	 ?from	 ?PCT	 ?more	 ?of	 ?the	 ?surplus	 ?funds	 ?that	 ?are	 ?not	 ?used	 ?to	 ?buy	 ?offsets	 ?from	 ?the	 ?private	 ?sector,	 ?and	 ?make	 ?these	 ?available	 ? to	 ? the	 ?public	 ? sector	 ? for	 ? emission	 ? reduction	 ? infrastructure	 ?projects.	 ?The	 ?scheme	 ?could	 ?be	 ?along	 ?similar	 ?lines	 ?to	 ?the	 ?CNCP	 ?for	 ?school	 ?districts	 ?starting	 ?in	 ?2012,	 ?but	 ?extended	 ?to	 ?all	 ?PSOs.	 ?	 ?	 ?A	 ? third	 ?way	 ? is	 ? to	 ? leverage	 ?more	 ?on	 ?external	 ? funding	 ? for	 ?PSOs	 ?by	 ?relaxing	 ? the	 ?debt	 ?ceiling	 ?in	 ?cases	 ?where	 ?PSOs	 ?can	 ?show	 ?that	 ?potential	 ?energy	 ?savings	 ?over	 ?the	 ?lifetime	 ?of	 ?the	 ?projects	 ?will	 ?be	 ?sufficient	 ?to	 ?pay	 ?back	 ?the	 ?loans	 ?required	 ?for	 ?the	 ?projects.	 ?	 ?	 ?7.3.2	 ? Expansion	 ?of	 ?Mandate	 ?Coverage	 ?An	 ?expansion	 ?of	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate	 ?to	 ?widen	 ?its	 ?reporting	 ?coverage	 ?is	 ?timely	 ?now.	 ?As	 ?mentioned	 ?in	 ?Section	 ?6.5.2,	 ?CAS	 ?has	 ?reported	 ?that	 ?core	 ?government	 ?ministries	 ?and	 ?agencies	 ? have	 ? reduced	 ? business	 ? travel	 ? emissions	 ? by	 ? 60%	 ? from	 ?2008	 ? to	 ? 2009	 ? and	 ?maintained	 ?emissions	 ?at	 ?this	 ?level	 ?through	 ?to	 ?2012.	 ?It	 ?is	 ?reasonable	 ?to	 ?expect	 ?some	 ?reductions	 ?in	 ?other	 ?PSOs	 ?if	 ?the	 ?mandate	 ?is	 ?similarly	 ?extended	 ?to	 ?cover	 ?their	 ?business	 ?travel	 ?emissions,	 ?even	 ? if	 ? the	 ?percentage	 ?of	 ?reduction	 ?may	 ?not	 ?be	 ?as	 ?big	 ?as	 ? that	 ? for	 ?the	 ?core	 ?government	 ?due	 ?to	 ?different	 ?operational	 ?needs.	 ?	 ?	 ?An	 ? extension	 ? of	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ? mandate	 ? to	 ? cover	 ? business	 ? travel	 ? for	 ? all	 ? PSOs	 ? can	 ? be	 ?implemented	 ?relatively	 ?quickly,	 ?since	 ?the	 ?methodology	 ?and	 ?SMARTTEC	 ?software	 ?are	 ?already	 ?available	 ?and	 ?being	 ?used	 ?by	 ?core	 ?government	 ?ministries	 ?and	 ?agencies	 ?for	 ?5	 ?years.	 ?If	 ?there	 ?is	 ?a	 ?need	 ?to	 ?ease	 ?the	 ?financial	 ?burden	 ?on	 ?PSOs,	 ?they	 ?can	 ?be	 ?mandated	 ?to	 ? start	 ? reporting	 ? these	 ? emissions	 ? first,	 ? with	 ? the	 ? requirement	 ? to	 ? purchase	 ? offsets	 ?phased	 ?in	 ?over	 ?a	 ?period	 ?of,	 ?say	 ?3	 ?years.	 ?	 ?	 ?	 ? 152	 ?CAS	 ?and	 ?Shared	 ?Services	 ?BC	 ?should	 ?also	 ?lead	 ?a	 ?team	 ?of	 ?PSOs	 ?to	 ?work	 ?on	 ?quantifying	 ?other	 ? major	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ? emissions	 ? besides	 ? paper	 ? and	 ? business	 ? travel.	 ? UBC?s	 ? GHG	 ?inventory	 ? shows	 ? that	 ? scope	 ? 3	 ? emissions	 ? not	 ? covered	 ? by	 ? the	 ? CNG	 ?make	 ? up	 ? half	 ? of	 ?total	 ?emissions,	 ?so	 ?it	 ?is	 ?obviously	 ?an	 ?area	 ?for	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?to	 ?focus	 ?on	 ?next.	 ?UBC	 ?has	 ? already	 ? taken	 ? the	 ? lead	 ? to	 ?measure	 ? these	 ?other	 ? emissions,	 ? and	 ?other	 ?PSOs	 ? can	 ?learn	 ?from	 ?its	 ?experience.	 ?Prime	 ?candidates	 ?for	 ?inclusion	 ?in	 ?reporting	 ?include	 ?staff,	 ?student	 ?or	 ?customer	 ?commuting,	 ?embodied	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?buildings	 ?and	 ?solid	 ?waste.	 ?	 ?	 ?7.3.3	 ? Expansion	 ?of	 ?Learning	 ?PSOs	 ? have	 ? reported	 ? on	 ? the	 ? benefits	 ? of	 ? learning	 ? from	 ? each	 ? other?s	 ? experiences	 ? in	 ?implementing	 ? the	 ?mandate	 ? and	 ? sharing	 ? lessons.	 ? CAS	 ? should	 ? continue	 ? to	 ? focus	 ? on	 ?providing	 ? more	 ? learning	 ? opportunities	 ? for	 ? PSOs	 ? and	 ? encouraging	 ? more	 ? learning	 ?networks	 ?among	 ?PSOs.	 ?Perhaps	 ?additional	 ?funding	 ?can	 ?be	 ?set	 ?aside	 ?by	 ?CAS	 ?to	 ?enable	 ?PSOs	 ? to	 ? conduct	 ?more	 ? learning	 ? fora	 ?or	 ?workshops	 ?both	 ?within	 ? sectors	 ? and	 ?across	 ?sectors.	 ?	 ?	 ?7.4	 ? Potential	 ?Future	 ?Research	 ?This	 ?research	 ?should	 ?be	 ?considered	 ?as	 ?one	 ?in	 ?a	 ?series	 ?of	 ?studies	 ?evaluating	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ? beginning	 ? with	 ? the	 ? work	 ? by	 ? (Webster	 ? and	 ? Moore	 ? 2009).	 ? Investing	 ? in	 ?infrastructure	 ? to	 ? transform	 ?an	 ?organization?s	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?profile	 ? is	 ?a	 ? long-??term	 ?process	 ? that	 ?requires	 ? leadership,	 ?support	 ?by	 ?stakeholders	 ?and	 ? large	 ?capital	 ?outlay.	 ?Follow-??up	 ?research	 ?that	 ?continues	 ?to	 ?monitor	 ?and	 ?compare	 ?PSO	 ?emissions	 ?and	 ?track	 ?infrastructure	 ? investments	 ? and	 ? their	 ? results	 ? can	 ? help	 ? to	 ? create	 ? awareness	 ? of	 ? the	 ?benefits	 ?of	 ?such	 ?investments	 ?and	 ?help	 ?build	 ?support	 ?for	 ?future	 ?investments.	 ?	 ?If	 ?the	 ?opportunity	 ?arises,	 ?it	 ?would	 ?be	 ?useful	 ?to	 ?conduct	 ?interviews	 ?with	 ?stakeholders	 ?in	 ? the	 ?smaller	 ?post-??secondary	 ? institutions	 ?and	 ?PSOs,	 ? to	 ?supplement	 ? the	 ? findings	 ?of	 ?	 ? 153	 ?this	 ?study.	 ?Follow	 ?up	 ?comparison	 ?of	 ?GHG	 ?emissions	 ?and	 ?energy	 ?consumption	 ?as	 ?well	 ?as	 ? interviews	 ? with	 ? UBC	 ? and	 ? SFU	 ? would	 ? also	 ? be	 ? useful	 ? in	 ? 3	 ? to	 ? 4	 ? years?	 ? time,	 ? to	 ?evaluate	 ?the	 ?progress	 ?made	 ?over	 ?a	 ?longer	 ?period	 ?of	 ?time.	 ?	 ?It	 ? would	 ? also	 ? be	 ? interesting	 ? to	 ? benchmark	 ? the	 ? reported	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? emissions	 ?against	 ? provincial-??level	 ? emissions	 ? for	 ? similar	 ? organizations.	 ? Since	 ? about	 ? 78%	 ? of	 ?total	 ?public	 ?sector	 ?emissions	 ?in	 ?2012	 ?were	 ?from	 ?buildings	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2013),	 ?the	 ?most	 ?comparable	 ?provincial	 ?data	 ?would	 ?be	 ?emissions	 ?from	 ?stationary	 ?combustion	 ? sources	 ? in	 ? the	 ? commercial	 ? and	 ? institutional	 ? sector.	 ? A	 ? comparison	 ? can	 ?also	 ?be	 ?made	 ?between	 ?public	 ?sector	 ? fleet	 ?emissions	 ?and	 ?provincial	 ?emissions	 ? from	 ?road	 ?transportation.	 ?Unfortunately,	 ?the	 ?latest	 ?GHG	 ?inventory	 ?report	 ?for	 ?BC	 ?provides	 ?data	 ?only	 ?up	 ?to	 ?2010	 ?(Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ?2012e).	 ?It	 ?is	 ?noted	 ?that	 ?between	 ?2000	 ? and	 ? 2010,	 ? emission	 ? from	 ? stationary	 ? combustion	 ? sources	 ? in	 ? the	 ? commercial	 ?and	 ? institutional	 ? sector	 ? in	 ?BC	 ?decreased	 ?by	 ?27%,	 ?while	 ? provincial	 ? emissions	 ? from	 ?road	 ? transportation	 ? increased	 ?by	 ?4.8%.	 ?During	 ? the	 ? same	 ?period,	 ? population	 ? in	 ?BC	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?12%	 ?(BC	 ?Statistics	 ?2013a)	 ?while	 ?GDP	 ?increased	 ?by	 ?54.7%	 ?(BC	 ?Statistics	 ?2013b).	 ?When	 ?provincial	 ?GHG	 ?inventory	 ?data	 ? is	 ?available	 ? in	 ?a	 ? few	 ?years	 ?time,	 ? they	 ?should	 ?be	 ?compared	 ?against	 ?GHG	 ?data	 ?of	 ?the	 ?public	 ?sector.	 ?	 ?	 ?Another	 ?worthwhile	 ?direction	 ?for	 ?future	 ?research	 ?is	 ?to	 ?explore	 ?and	 ?possibly	 ?quantify	 ?the	 ?spillover	 ?impacts	 ?from	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate.	 ?The	 ?most	 ?common	 ?spillovers	 ?referred	 ?to	 ? in	 ? discussions	 ? of	 ? climate	 ? policy	 ? include	 ? substitution	 ? effects,	 ? ?carbon	 ? leakage?,	 ?diffusion	 ?of	 ?technological	 ?innovations	 ?(Sijm	 ?et	 ?al.	 ?2005)	 ?and	 ?policy	 ?learning	 ?(Hoberg	 ?1991;	 ?Dolowitz	 ?and	 ?Marsh	 ?1996).	 ?Previous	 ?research	 ?have	 ?shown	 ?that	 ?environmental	 ?regulations	 ?may	 ?lead	 ?to	 ?a	 ?higher	 ?demand	 ?for	 ?specific	 ?environmental	 ?technologies	 ?or	 ?provide	 ? new	 ?market	 ? niches	 ? for	 ? the	 ?manufacturing	 ? and	 ? service	 ? sectors	 ? (Maier	 ? and	 ?Sedlacek	 ?2005).	 ?Arising	 ?from	 ?the	 ?CNG	 ?mandate,	 ?there	 ?is	 ?also	 ?a	 ?sizeable	 ?opportunity	 ?for	 ? BC	 ? businesses	 ? to	 ? supply	 ? carbon	 ? reduction	 ? credits	 ? to	 ? the	 ? public	 ? sector	 ? and	 ?	 ? 154	 ?beyond	 ?(N.	 ?Olewiler	 ?2009).	 ?Each	 ?of	 ?these	 ?spillovers	 ?could	 ?provide	 ?interesting	 ?areas	 ?for	 ?detailed	 ?exploration.	 ?	 ?	 ? 	 ?	 ? 155	 ?Bibliography	 ?Aall,	 ?Carlo,	 ?Kyrre	 ?Groven,	 ?and	 ?Gard	 ?Lindseth.	 ?2011.	 ? ?The	 ?Scope	 ?of	 ?Action	 ? for	 ?Local	 ?Climate	 ? Policy:	 ? The	 ? Case	 ? of	 ? Norway.?	 ? Global	 ? Environmental	 ? Politics	 ? 7	 ? (2)	 ?(June	 ? 28):	 ? 83?101.	 ? doi:10.1162/glep.2007.7.2.83.	 ?http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/glep.2007.7.2.83.	 ?Abadie,	 ? Luis	 ?M.,	 ? Ramon	 ? A.	 ? Ortiz,	 ? and	 ? I.	 ? Galarraga.	 ? 2012.	 ? ?Determinants	 ? of	 ? Energy	 ?Efficiency	 ? Investments	 ? in	 ? the	 ? US.?	 ? Energy	 ? Policy	 ? 45	 ? (0)	 ? (June):	 ? 551?566.	 ?doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.03.002.	 ?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421512002078.	 ?Bailey,	 ?Ian,	 ?and	 ?Susanne	 ?Rupp.	 ?2005.	 ??Geography	 ?and	 ?Climate	 ?Policy:	 ?a	 ?Comparative	 ?Assessment	 ? of	 ? New	 ? Environmental	 ? Policy	 ? Instruments	 ? in	 ? the	 ? UK	 ? and	 ?Germany.?	 ? Geoforum	 ? 36	 ? (3)	 ? (May):	 ? 387?401.	 ?doi:10.1016/j.geoforum.2004.07.002.	 ?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0016718504000892.	 ?Baldwin,	 ? Robert,	 ? Martin	 ? Cave,	 ? and	 ? Martin	 ? Lodge.	 ? 2010.	 ? ?25.	 ? The	 ? Future	 ? of	 ?Regulation.?	 ?In	 ?The	 ?Oxford	 ?Handbook	 ?of	 ?Regulation.	 ?Oxford	 ?University	 ?Press.	 ?Ball,	 ? Amanda,	 ? Ian	 ? Mason,	 ? Suzana	 ? Grubnic,	 ? and	 ? Phil	 ? Hughes.	 ? 2009.	 ? ?The	 ? Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ? Public	 ? Sector.?	 ? Public	 ? Management	 ? Review	 ? 11	 ? (5):	 ? 575?600.	 ?doi:10.1080/14719030902798263.	 ?Bansal,	 ? Pratima,	 ? and	 ? Kendall	 ? Roth.	 ? 2000.	 ? ?Why	 ? Companies	 ? Go	 ? Green:	 ? A	 ?Model	 ? of	 ?Ecological	 ? Responsiveness.?	 ? The	 ? Academy	 ? of	 ? Management	 ? Journal	 ? 43	 ? (4):	 ?717?736.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/1556363.	 ?Bardach,	 ? Eugene,	 ? and	 ? Robert	 ? A	 ? Kagan.	 ? 1982.	 ? Going	 ? by	 ? the	 ? Book:	 ? The	 ? Problem	 ? of	 ?Regulatory	 ?Unreasonableness.	 ?Temple	 ?University	 ?Press.	 ?Barrett,	 ?Tom.	 ?2011.	 ? ??Carbon	 ?Neutral?	 ?Goal	 ? Spurs	 ?Projects.?	 ?The	 ?Tyee,	 ?December	 ?1.	 ?http://www.tyeesolutions.org/?p=955.	 ?BC	 ? Statistics.	 ? 2013a.	 ? ?Population	 ? Estimates,	 ? British	 ? Columbia	 ? and	 ? Sub-??Provincial	 ? -??	 ?BC	 ? Stats.?	 ? Accessed	 ? September	 ? 12.	 ?http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Demography/PopulationEstimates.aspx.	 ????.	 ? 2013b.	 ? ?Economic	 ? Accounts	 ? -??	 ? BC	 ? Stats.?	 ? Accessed	 ? September	 ? 12.	 ?http://www.bcstats.gov.bc.ca/StatisticsBySubject/Economy/EconomicAccounts.aspx.	 ?Benn,	 ? S.,	 ? D.	 ? C	 ? Dunphy,	 ? and	 ? A.	 ? B	 ? Griffiths.	 ? 2006.	 ? ?Enabling	 ? Change	 ? for	 ? Corporate	 ?Sustainability:	 ? An	 ? Integrated	 ? Perspective.?	 ? Australisian	 ? Journal	 ? of	 ?Environmental	 ? Management	 ? 13	 ? (3)	 ? (September	 ? 6):	 ? 156?166.	 ?http://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:83048.	 ?	 ? 156	 ?Bennear,	 ? Lori	 ? Snyder.	 ? 2007.	 ? ?Are	 ? Management-??based	 ? Regulations	 ? Effective?	 ?Evidence	 ? from	 ? State	 ? Pollution	 ? Prevention	 ? Programs.?	 ? Journal	 ? of	 ? Policy	 ?Analysis	 ? and	 ? Management	 ? 26	 ? (2):	 ? 327?348.	 ? doi:10.1002/pam.20250.	 ?http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pam.20250.	 ?Bennear,	 ? Lori	 ? Snyder,	 ? and	 ? Cary	 ? Coglianese.	 ? 2005.	 ? ?Measuring	 ? Progress:	 ? Program	 ?Evaluation	 ?of	 ?Environmental	 ?Policies.?	 ?Environment	 ?47	 ?(2)	 ?(March):	 ?22?39.	 ?Berkhout,	 ? Tom,	 ? and	 ? Ian	 ? H.	 ? Rowlands.	 ? 2007.	 ? ?The	 ? Voluntary	 ? Adoption	 ? of	 ? Green	 ?Electricity	 ? By	 ? Ontario-??Based	 ? Companies:	 ? The	 ? Importance	 ? of	 ? Organizational	 ?Values	 ?and	 ?Organizational	 ?Context.?	 ?Organization	 ?&	 ?Environment	 ?20	 ?(3):	 ?281	 ??303.	 ? doi:10.1177/1086026607306464.	 ?http://oae.sagepub.com/content/20/3/281.abstract.	 ?Biber,	 ? E.	 ? 2009.	 ? ?Too	 ? Many	 ? Things	 ? to	 ? Do:	 ? How	 ? to	 ? Deal	 ? with	 ? the	 ? Dysfunctions	 ? of	 ?Multiple-??Goal	 ?Agencies.?	 ?Harvard	 ?Environmental	 ?Law	 ?Review	 ?33:	 ?1?63.	 ?Bin,	 ?S.,	 ?and	 ?H.	 ?Dowlatabadi.	 ?2005.	 ??Consumer	 ?Lifestyle	 ?Approach	 ?to	 ?US	 ?Energy	 ?Use	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Related	 ?CO	 ?2	 ?Emissions.?	 ?Energy	 ?Policy	 ?33	 ?(2):	 ?197?208.	 ?Brinkhurst,	 ?Marena,	 ?Peter	 ?Rose,	 ?Gillian	 ?Maurice,	 ?and	 ? Josef	 ?Daniel	 ?Ackerman.	 ?2011.	 ??Achieving	 ? Campus	 ? Sustainability:	 ? Top-??down,	 ? Bottom-??up,	 ? or	 ? Neither??	 ?International	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Sustainability	 ?in	 ?Higher	 ?Education	 ?12	 ?(4)	 ?(September	 ?20):	 ? 338?354.	 ? doi:10.1108/14676371111168269.	 ?http://www.emeraldinsight.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/journals.htm?articleid=1953986&show=abstract.	 ?British	 ? Columbia	 ? Government.	 ? 2007.	 ? ?Greenhouse	 ? Gas	 ? Reduction	 ? Targets	 ? Act.?	 ?November	 ? 29.	 ?http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_07042_01.	 ????.	 ? 2008a.	 ? ?New	 ? Centre	 ? To	 ? Train	 ? More	 ? Health	 ? Professionals	 ? in	 ? B.C.?	 ? May	 ? 1.	 ?http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2005-??2009/2008OTP0109-??000659.htm.	 ????.	 ? 2008b.	 ? ?Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Government	 ? Regulation.?	 ? December	 ? 9.	 ?http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/392_2008.	 ?Busch,	 ?Timo,	 ?and	 ?Volker	 ?H	 ?Hoffmann.	 ?2011.	 ??How	 ?Hot	 ?Is	 ?Your	 ?Bottom	 ?Line?	 ?Linking	 ?Carbon	 ? and	 ? Financial	 ? Performance.?	 ?Business	 ?&	 ?Society	 ? 50	 ? (2)	 ? (June):	 ? 233?265.	 ? doi:10.1177/0007650311398780.	 ?http://bas.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/content/50/2/233.	 ?Ciocirlan,	 ?Cristina	 ?E.	 ?2008.	 ??Analysing	 ?Preferences	 ?Towards	 ?Economic	 ?Incentives	 ?in	 ?Combating	 ? Climate	 ? Change:	 ? a	 ? Comparative	 ? Analysis	 ? of	 ? US	 ? States.?	 ? Climate	 ?Policy	 ?8	 ?(6)	 ?(December):	 ?548?568.	 ?doi:10.3763/cpol.2007.0441.	 ?Climate	 ? Action	 ? Secretariat,	 ? Ministy	 ? of	 ? Environment	 ? BC.	 ? 2013.	 ? ?LiveSmart	 ? Leaders	 ?Online	 ? Community	 ? -??	 ? 	 ? Climate	 ? Action	 ? in	 ? BC.?	 ? Accessed	 ? September	 ? 14.	 ?http://www.livesmartbccommunity.ca/.	 ?	 ? 157	 ?Coglianese,	 ?Cary.	 ?2008.	 ??The	 ?Managerial	 ?Turn	 ?in	 ?Environmental	 ?policy.(Breaking	 ?the	 ?Logjam:	 ?Environmental	 ?Reform	 ?for	 ?the	 ?New	 ?Congress	 ?and	 ?Administration).?	 ?New	 ?York	 ?University	 ?Environmental	 ?Law	 ?Journal	 ?17	 ?(1):	 ?54.	 ?Coglianese,	 ? Cary,	 ? and	 ? David	 ? Lazer.	 ? 2003.	 ? ?Management-??Based	 ? Regulation:	 ?Prescribing	 ? Private	 ? Management	 ? to	 ? Achieve	 ? Public	 ? Goals.?	 ? Law	 ? &	 ? Society	 ?Review	 ? 37	 ? (4):	 ? 691?730.	 ? doi:10.1046/j.0023-??9216.2003.03703001.x.	 ?http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.0023-??9216.2003.03703001.x.	 ?Coglianese,	 ? Cary,	 ? and	 ? Evan	 ? Mendelson.	 ? 2010.	 ? ?8.	 ? Meta-??Regulation	 ? and	 ? Self-??Regulation.?	 ?In	 ?The	 ?Oxford	 ?Handbook	 ?of	 ?Regulation.	 ?Oxford	 ?University	 ?Press.	 ?Coglianese,	 ? Cary,	 ? and	 ? Jennifer	 ? Nash,	 ? ed.	 ? 2006.	 ? Leveraging	 ? the	 ? Private	 ? Sector:	 ?Management-??Based	 ? Strategies	 ? for	 ? Improving	 ? Environmental	 ? Performance.	 ?Resources	 ?for	 ?the	 ?Future.	 ?Coglianese,	 ? Cary,	 ? Jennifer	 ? Nash,	 ? and	 ? Todd	 ? Olmstead.	 ? 2003.	 ? ?Performance-??based	 ?Regulation:	 ?Prospects	 ? and	 ?Limitations	 ? in	 ?Health,	 ? Safety,	 ? and	 ?Environmental	 ?Protection.?	 ? Administrative	 ? Law	 ? Review	 ? 55	 ? (4):	 ? 705?730.	 ? doi:Article.	 ?http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=bth&AN=12187403&site=ehost-??live.	 ?Cohen,	 ?M.	 ?D,	 ?J.	 ?G	 ?March,	 ?and	 ?J.	 ?P	 ?Olsen.	 ?1972.	 ??A	 ?Garbage	 ?Can	 ?Model	 ?of	 ?Organizational	 ?Choice.?	 ?Administrative	 ?Science	 ?Quarterly	 ?17	 ?(1):	 ?1?25.	 ?Collier,	 ? Ute,	 ? and	 ? Ragnar	 ? E	 ? Lofstedt.	 ? 1997.	 ? ?Think	 ? Globally,	 ? Act	 ? Locally??:	 ? Local	 ?Climate	 ? Change	 ? and	 ? Energy	 ? Policies	 ? in	 ? Sweden	 ? and	 ? the	 ? UK.?	 ? Global	 ?Environmental	 ? Change	 ? 7	 ? (1)	 ? (April):	 ? 25?40.	 ? doi:10.1016/S0959-??3780(96)00025-??8.	 ?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378096000258.	 ?Council	 ?on	 ?Environmental	 ?Quality.	 ?1997.	 ??The	 ?National	 ?Environmental	 ?Policy	 ?Act:	 ?A	 ?Study	 ? of	 ? Its	 ? Effectiveness	 ? After	 ? Twenty	 ? Five	 ? Years.?	 ? Council	 ? on	 ?Environmental	 ?Quality.	 ?Creswell,	 ?John	 ?W.,	 ?Vicki	 ?L.	 ?Plano	 ?Clark,	 ?Michelle	 ?L.	 ?Gutmann,	 ?and	 ?William	 ?E.	 ?Hanson.	 ?2003.	 ? ?Advanced	 ? Mixed	 ? Methods	 ? Research	 ? Design.?	 ? In	 ? Handbook	 ? of	 ? Mixed	 ?Methods	 ? in	 ? Social	 ? &	 ? Behavioral	 ? Research,	 ? edited	 ? by	 ? Abbas	 ? Tashakkori	 ? and	 ?Charles	 ?Teddlie.	 ?Thousand	 ?Oaks,	 ?California:	 ?SAGE	 ?Publications.	 ?Crossan,	 ? M.	 ? M,	 ? H.	 ? W	 ? Lane,	 ? and	 ? R.	 ? E	 ? White.	 ? 1999.	 ? ?An	 ? Organizational	 ? Learning	 ?Framework:	 ?From	 ? Intuition	 ? to	 ? Institution.?	 ?Academy	 ?of	 ?Management	 ?Review	 ?24	 ?(3):	 ?522?537.	 ?Culhane,	 ? P.	 ? J.	 ? 1990.	 ? ?NEPA?s	 ? Impacts	 ? on	 ? Federal	 ? Agencies,	 ? Anticipated	 ? and	 ?Unanticipated.?	 ?Environmental	 ?Law	 ?20:	 ?681?702.	 ?Delmas,	 ? Magali	 ? A.,	 ? and	 ? Michael	 ? W.	 ? Toffel.	 ? 2008.	 ? ?Organizational	 ? Responses	 ? to	 ?Environmental	 ? Demands:	 ? Opening	 ? the	 ? Black	 ? Box.?	 ? Strategic	 ? Management	 ?Journal	 ?29	 ?(10):	 ?1027?1055.	 ?http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/smj.701.	 ?	 ? 158	 ?Department	 ?of	 ?Environment	 ?&	 ?Climate	 ?Change,	 ?NSW	 ?Government.	 ?2009.	 ??Guide	 ?for	 ?NSW	 ? Government	 ? Agencies:	 ? How	 ? to	 ? Prepare	 ? a	 ? Greenhouse	 ? Gas	 ? Emissions	 ?Inventory.?	 ?http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/government/09669GHGinv.pdf.	 ?Dolowitz,	 ?David,	 ?and	 ?David	 ?Marsh.	 ?1996.	 ??Who	 ?Learns	 ?What	 ?from	 ?Whom:	 ?a	 ?Review	 ?of	 ? the	 ? Policy	 ? Transfer	 ? Literature.?	 ? Political	 ? Studies	 ? 44	 ? (2):	 ? 343?357.	 ?doi:10.1111/j.1467-??9248.1996.tb00334.x.	 ?http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-??9248.1996.tb00334.x.	 ?Douglas	 ? College.	 ? 2013.	 ? ?Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Action	 ? Report	 ? 2012?.	 ? Douglas	 ? College.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/reports/cnar/DouglasCollege_2012.pdf.	 ?Dowlatabadi,	 ? Hadi.	 ? 2011.	 ? ?Lifecycle	 ? Analysis	 ? of	 ? GHG	 ? Intensity	 ? in	 ? BC?s	 ? Energy	 ?Sources?.	 ? Pacific	 ? Institute	 ? for	 ? Climate	 ? Solutions.	 ?http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Lifecycle%20analysis%20of%20GHG%20intensity%20in%20BC%27s%20energy%20sources%20.pdf.	 ?Downie,	 ?C.	 ?2007.	 ??Carbon	 ?Offsets:	 ?Saviour	 ?or	 ?Cop-??out??	 ?Australia	 ?Institute	 ?Research	 ?Paper	 ?48.	 ?Driesen,	 ?David.	 ?2010.	 ??10.	 ?Alternatives	 ?to	 ?Regulation?	 ?Market	 ?Mechanisms	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Environment.?	 ? In	 ? The	 ? Oxford	 ? Handbook	 ? of	 ? Regulation.	 ? Oxford	 ? University	 ?Press.	 ?Dunphy,	 ?D.	 ?C.	 ?2007.	 ?Organizational	 ?Change	 ?for	 ?Corporate	 ?Sustainability:	 ?A	 ?Guide	 ?for	 ?Leaders	 ?and	 ?Change	 ?Agents	 ?of	 ?the	 ?Future.	 ?2nd	 ?ed.	 ?London:	 ?Routledge.	 ?Dusyk,	 ? Nicole,	 ? Tom	 ? Berkhout,	 ? Sarah	 ? Burch,	 ? Sylvia	 ? Coleman,	 ? and	 ? John	 ? Robinson.	 ?2009.	 ? ?Transformative	 ? Energy	 ? Efficiency	 ? and	 ? Conservation:	 ? a	 ? Sustainable	 ?Development	 ?Path	 ?Approach	 ?in	 ?British	 ?Columbia,	 ?Canada.?	 ?Energy	 ?Efficiency	 ?2	 ?(4):	 ?387?400.	 ?http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=21931877.	 ?Elgie,	 ? Stewart.	 ? 2012.	 ? ?British	 ? Columbia?s	 ? Carbon	 ? Tax	 ? Shift:	 ? The	 ? First	 ? Four	 ? Years?.	 ?Ottawa,	 ? Canada:	 ? Sustainable	 ? Prosperity.	 ?http://www.sustainableprosperity.ca/article2864.	 ?Environment	 ? Canada.	 ? 2013.	 ? ?Bioclimate	 ? Profiles	 ? Help.?	 ? Accessed	 ? August	 ? 14.	 ?http://www.cccsn.ec.gc.ca/?page=bioc-??help.	 ?Erdmenger,	 ? Christoph,	 ? ed.	 ? 2003.	 ? Buying	 ? Into	 ? The	 ? Environment	 ? -??	 ? Experiences,	 ?Opportunities	 ? and	 ? Potential	 ? for	 ? Eco-??Procurement.	 ? Greenleaf	 ? Publishing	 ?Limited.	 ?Fernandez,	 ? Sergio,	 ? and	 ? Hal	 ? G.	 ? Rainey.	 ? 2006.	 ? ?Managing	 ? Successful	 ? Organizational	 ?Change	 ? in	 ?the	 ?Public	 ?Sector.?	 ?Public	 ?Administration	 ?Review	 ?66	 ?(2):	 ?168?176.	 ?doi:10.1111/j.1540-??6210.2006.00570.x.	 ? http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-??6210.2006.00570.x.	 ?	 ? 159	 ?Fiorino,	 ? Daniel	 ? J.	 ? 1996.	 ? ?Toward	 ? a	 ?New	 ? System	 ?of	 ? Environmental	 ? Regulation:	 ? The	 ?Case	 ? for	 ? an	 ? Industry	 ? Sector	 ? Approach.?	 ? Environmental	 ? Law	 ? 26:	 ? 457.	 ?http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/envlnw26&id=477&div=&collection=journals.	 ????.	 ? 1999.	 ? ?Rethinking	 ? Environmental	 ? Regulation:	 ? Perspectives	 ? on	 ? Law	 ? and	 ?Governance.?	 ? Harvard	 ? Environmental	 ? Law	 ? Review	 ? 23:	 ? 441.	 ?http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/helr23&id=447&div=&collection=journals.	 ????.	 ?2006.	 ?The	 ?New	 ?Environmental	 ?Regulation.	 ?MIT	 ?Press.	 ?Florida,	 ?Richard,	 ?Mark	 ?Atlas,	 ?and	 ?Matt	 ?Cline.	 ?2001.	 ??What	 ?Makes	 ?Companies	 ?Green?	 ?Organizational	 ? and	 ? Geographic	 ? Factors	 ? in	 ? the	 ? Adoption	 ? of	 ? Environmental	 ?Practices.?	 ? Economic	 ? Geography	 ? 77	 ? (3)	 ? (July):	 ? 209?224.	 ?doi:10.2307/3594072.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/3594072.	 ?Funtowicz,	 ?Silvio	 ?O.,	 ?and	 ?Jerome	 ?R.	 ?Ravetz.	 ?1993.	 ??Science	 ?for	 ?the	 ?Post-??normal	 ?Age.?	 ?Futures	 ?25	 ?(7)	 ?(September):	 ?739?755.	 ?doi:10.1016/0016-??3287(93)90022-??L.	 ?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/001632879390022L.	 ?Gallop?n,	 ? Gilberto	 ? C.,	 ? Silvio	 ? Funtowicz,	 ? Martin	 ? O?Connor,	 ? and	 ? Jerry	 ? Ravetz.	 ? 2001.	 ??Science	 ?for	 ?the	 ?Twenty-??First	 ?Century:	 ?From	 ?Social	 ?Contract	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Scientific	 ?Core.?	 ? International	 ? Social	 ? Science	 ? Journal	 ? 53	 ? (168):	 ? 219?229.	 ?doi:10.1111/1468-??2451.00311.	 ? http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-??2451.00311.	 ?Gerring,	 ? John.	 ? 2004.	 ? ?What	 ? Is	 ? a	 ? Case	 ? Study	 ? and	 ?What	 ? Is	 ? It	 ? Good	 ? For??	 ? American	 ?Political	 ? Science	 ? Review	 ? 98	 ? (02):	 ? 341?354.	 ?doi:10.1017/S0003055404001182.	 ?Globe	 ? Foundation.	 ? 2010.	 ? ?British	 ? Columbia?s	 ? Green	 ? Economy:	 ? Securing	 ? the	 ?Workforce	 ? of	 ? Tomorrow?.	 ? Globe	 ? Foundation.	 ?http://bcgreeneconomy.globeadvisors.ca/media/6723/globe_bc_green_economy_report_ii_final.pdf.	 ?Goitein,	 ?Bernard.	 ?1989.	 ? ?Organizational	 ?Decision-??making	 ?and	 ?Energy	 ?Conservation	 ?Investments.?	 ? Evaluation	 ? and	 ? Program	 ? Planning	 ? 12	 ? (2):	 ? 143?151.	 ?doi:10.1016/0149-??7189(89)90005-??0.	 ?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0149718989900050.	 ?Green,	 ? Ken,	 ? Barbara	 ? Morton,	 ? and	 ? Steve	 ? New.	 ? 2000.	 ? ?Greening	 ? Organizations:	 ?Purchasing,	 ? Consumption	 ? and	 ? Innovation.?	 ?Organization	 ?&	 ? Environment	 ? 13	 ?(2)	 ? (June):	 ? 206	 ? ?225.	 ? doi:10.1177/1086026600132003.	 ?http://oae.sagepub.com/content/13/2/206.abstract.	 ?Greene,	 ? Jennifer	 ? C.,	 ? Valerie	 ? J.	 ? Caracelli,	 ? and	 ? Wendy	 ? F.	 ? Graham.	 ? 1989.	 ? ?Toward	 ? a	 ?Conceptual	 ? Framework	 ? for	 ?Mixed-??Method	 ? Evaluation	 ?Designs.?	 ?Educational	 ?Evaluation	 ? and	 ? Policy	 ? Analysis	 ? 11	 ? (3):	 ? 255	 ? ?274.	 ?doi:10.3102/01623737011003255.	 ?http://epa.sagepub.com/content/11/3/255.abstract.	 ?	 ? 160	 ?Gunningham,	 ? Neil.	 ? 2007.	 ? ?Regulatory	 ? Reform	 ? Beyond	 ? Command	 ? and	 ? Control.?	 ? In	 ?Amsterdam	 ? Conference	 ? on	 ? the	 ? Human	 ? Dimensions	 ? of	 ? Global	 ? Environmental	 ?Change,	 ?Earth	 ?System	 ?Governance:	 ?Theories	 ?and	 ?Strategies	 ? for	 ? Sustainability,	 ?24?26.	 ?Gunningham,	 ?Neil,	 ? and	 ?Darren	 ?Sinclair.	 ? 1999.	 ? ?Integrative	 ?Regulation:	 ?A	 ?Principle-??Based	 ? Approach	 ? to	 ? Environmental	 ? Policy.?	 ? Law	 ? &	 ? Social	 ? Inquiry	 ? 24	 ? (4)	 ?(October):	 ?853?896.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/829148.	 ?Harrington,	 ? Winston,	 ? Richard	 ? D	 ? Morgenstern,	 ? and	 ? Thomas	 ? Sterner,	 ? ed.	 ? 2004.	 ?Choosing	 ?Environmental	 ?Policy:	 ? Comparing	 ? Instruments	 ?and	 ?Outcomes	 ? in	 ? the	 ?United	 ?States	 ?and	 ?Europe.	 ?Resources	 ?for	 ?the	 ?Future.	 ?Harrington,	 ? Winston,	 ? Richard	 ? D.	 ? Morgenstern,	 ? and	 ? Peter	 ? Nelson.	 ? 2000.	 ? ?On	 ? the	 ?Accuracy	 ? of	 ? Regulatory	 ? Cost	 ? Estimates.?	 ? Journal	 ? of	 ? Policy	 ? Analysis	 ? and	 ?Management	 ? 19	 ? (2):	 ? 297?322.	 ? doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-??6688(200021)19:2<297::AID-??PAM7>3.0.CO;2-??X.	 ?http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1520-??6688(200021)19:2<297::AID-??PAM7>3.0.CO;2-??X.	 ?Henderson,	 ? J.	 ?A.	 ? Jr,	 ?and	 ?R.	 ?N	 ?Pearson.	 ?1978.	 ? ?Implementing	 ?Federal	 ?Environmental	 ?Policies:	 ? The	 ? Limits	 ? of	 ? Aspirational	 ? Commands.?	 ? Columbia	 ? Law	 ? Review	 ? 78:	 ?1429?1470.	 ?Hewitt,	 ? Kari.	 ? 2008.	 ? ?Corporate	 ? Use	 ? of	 ? Voluntary	 ? Carbon	 ? Offsets:	 ? Greening	 ? the	 ?Economy	 ?or	 ?Business	 ?as	 ?Usual??	 ?M.A.,	 ?Urban	 ?and	 ?Environmental	 ?Policy	 ?and	 ?Planning,	 ?United	 ?States	 ?-??-??	 ?Massachusetts:	 ?Tufts	 ?University.	 ?Hoberg,	 ? George.	 ? 1991.	 ? ?Sleeping	 ? with	 ? an	 ? Elephant:	 ? The	 ? American	 ? Influence	 ? on	 ?Canadian	 ? Environmental	 ? Regulation.?	 ? Journal	 ? of	 ? Public	 ? Policy	 ? 11	 ? (1)	 ?(January):	 ?107?131.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/4007340.	 ?Holling,	 ?C.	 ?S,	 ?ed.	 ?1978.	 ?Adaptive	 ?Environmental	 ?Assessment	 ?and	 ?Management.	 ?Vol.	 ?3.	 ?Wiley	 ? IIASA	 ? International	 ? Series	 ? on	 ? Applied	 ? Systems	 ? Analysis.	 ? Chichester;	 ?New	 ?York:	 ?Wiley.	 ?Hood,	 ? C.,	 ? Oliver	 ? James,	 ? and	 ? C.	 ? Scott.	 ? 2000.	 ? ?Regulation	 ? of	 ? Government:	 ? Has	 ? It	 ?Increased,	 ? Is	 ? It	 ? Increasing,	 ? Should	 ? It	 ? Be	 ?Diminished??	 ?Public	 ?Administration	 ?78	 ?(2):	 ?283?304.	 ?Hood,	 ?C.,	 ?Oliver	 ? James,	 ?C.	 ?Scott,	 ?G.	 ?W	 ?Jones,	 ?and	 ?T.	 ?Travers.	 ?1999.	 ?Regulation	 ?Inside	 ?Government:	 ? Waste	 ? Watchers,	 ? Quality	 ? Police,	 ? and	 ? Sleaze-??busters.	 ? Oxford	 ?University	 ?Press.	 ?Industry	 ?Canada.	 ?2013.	 ??Knowledge	 ?Infrastructure	 ?Program	 ?Across	 ?Canada	 ?-??	 ?Home	 ?-??	 ?Knowledge	 ? Infrastructure	 ? Program.?	 ? Accessed	 ? September	 ? 12.	 ?http://www.ic.gc.ca/eic/site/696.nsf/eng/home.	 ?Jaccard,	 ?Mark,	 ?and	 ?Brad	 ?Griffin.	 ?2011.	 ??BC?s	 ?Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Public	 ?Sector:	 ?	 ?Too	 ?Good	 ?to	 ? Be	 ? True??	 ? Simon	 ? Fraser	 ? University.	 ?http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/pamr/pdfs/CarbonNeutral%20BC%20Govt%20Jaccard%20Griffin%20July%2015%202011.pdf.	 ?	 ? 161	 ?James,	 ? Oliver.	 ? 2005.	 ? ?The	 ? Rise	 ? of	 ? Regulation	 ? of	 ? the	 ? Public	 ? Sector	 ? in	 ? the	 ? United	 ?Kingdom.?	 ? Sociologie	 ? Du	 ? Travail	 ? 47	 ? (3)	 ? (July):	 ? 323?339.	 ?doi:10.1016/j.soctra.2005.06.011.	 ?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038029605000622.	 ?Johnson,	 ?R.	 ?Burke,	 ?and	 ?Anthony	 ?J.	 ?Onwuegbuzie.	 ?2004.	 ??Mixed	 ?Methods	 ?Research:	 ?A	 ?Research	 ?Paradigm	 ?Whose	 ?Time	 ?Has	 ?Come.?	 ?Educational	 ?Researcher	 ? 33	 ? (7)	 ?(October):	 ?14?26.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/3700093.	 ?Jones,	 ? Charles	 ? A.,	 ? and	 ? David	 ? L.	 ? Levy.	 ? 2007.	 ? ?North	 ? American	 ? Business	 ? Strategies	 ?Towards	 ?Climate	 ?Change.?	 ?European	 ?Management	 ?Journal	 ?25	 ?(6)	 ?(December):	 ?428?440.	 ? doi:10.1016/j.emj.2007.07.001.	 ?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0263237307000631.	 ?Karkkainen,	 ?Bradley	 ?C.	 ?2002.	 ? ?Toward	 ?a	 ?Smarter	 ?NEPA:	 ?Monitoring	 ?and	 ?Managing	 ?Government?s	 ? Environmental	 ? Performance.?	 ? Columbia	 ? Law	 ? Review	 ? 102	 ? (4)	 ?(May):	 ?903?972.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/1123648.	 ?Keeler,	 ?Andrew	 ?G.	 ?2007.	 ? ?State	 ?Greenhouse	 ?Gas	 ?Reduction	 ?Policies:	 ?A	 ?Move	 ? in	 ? the	 ?Right	 ? Direction??	 ? Policy	 ? Sciences	 ? 40	 ? (4)	 ? (December):	 ? 353?365.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/25474344.	 ?Khanna,	 ?Madhu.	 ?2001.	 ? ?Non-??Mandatory	 ?Approaches	 ? to	 ?Environmental	 ?Protection.?	 ?Journal	 ? of	 ? Economic	 ? Surveys	 ? 15	 ? (3):	 ? 291?324.	 ?http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-??6419.00141.	 ?Kok,	 ?Marcel,	 ?Walter	 ? Vermeulen,	 ? Andre	 ? Faaij,	 ? and	 ?David	 ? de	 ? Jager,	 ? ed.	 ? 2002.	 ?Global	 ?Warming	 ? and	 ? Social	 ? Innovation:	 ? The	 ? Challenge	 ? of	 ? a	 ? Climate-??neutral	 ? Society.	 ?Earthscan.	 ?KPMG	 ? LLP	 ? Canada.	 ? 2012.	 ? ?British	 ? Columbia	 ? Technology	 ? Report	 ? Card	 ? 2012?.	 ?Vancouver,	 ?BC,	 ?Canada.	 ?Lau,	 ?Kim	 ?Y,	 ?and	 ?Hadi	 ?Dowlatabadi.	 ?2011a.	 ??Lessons	 ?from	 ?British	 ?Columbia?s	 ??Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government?	 ?Mandate?.	 ?Pacific	 ?Institute	 ?for	 ?Climate	 ?Solutions.	 ????.	 ? 2011b.	 ? ?Expanding	 ? the	 ? Scope	 ? of	 ? British	 ? Columbia?s	 ? ?carbon	 ? Neutral	 ?Government?	 ? Mandate?.	 ? Pacific	 ? Institute	 ? for	 ? Climate	 ? Solutions.	 ?http://pics.uvic.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/publications/Expanding%20the%20scope%20of%20British%20Columbia%27s%20carbon%20neutral%20government%20mandate%20.pdf.	 ?Lee,	 ? Marc.	 ? 2011.	 ? ?Deconstructing	 ? BC?s	 ? Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Government.?	 ? Policy	 ? Note.	 ?http://www.policynote.ca/deconstructing-??bcs-??carbon-??neutral-??government/.	 ?Lindblom,	 ? Charles	 ? E.	 ? 1959.	 ? ?The	 ? Science	 ? of	 ? ?Muddling	 ? Through?.?	 ? Public	 ?Administration	 ? Review	 ? 19	 ? (2)	 ? (April):	 ? 79?88.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/973677.	 ?Lodge,	 ? Martin,	 ? and	 ? Christopher	 ? Hood.	 ? 2010.	 ? ?24.	 ? Regulation	 ? Inside	 ? Government:	 ?Retro-??Theory	 ? Vindicated	 ? or	 ? Outdated??	 ? In	 ? The	 ? Oxford	 ? Handbook	 ? of	 ?Regulation.	 ?Oxford	 ?University	 ?Press.	 ?	 ? 162	 ?Lutsey,	 ?Nicholas,	 ?and	 ?Daniel	 ?Sperling.	 ?2008.	 ? ?America?s	 ?Bottom-??up	 ?Climate	 ?Change	 ?Mitigation	 ? Policy.?	 ? Energy	 ? Policy	 ? 36	 ? (2)	 ? (February):	 ? 673?685.	 ?doi:16/j.enpol.2007.10.018.	 ?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421507004405.	 ?Lyon,	 ?T.	 ? P,	 ? and	 ? J.	 ?W	 ?Maxwell.	 ? 2004.	 ?Corporate	 ?Environmentalism	 ?and	 ?Public	 ?Policy.	 ?Cambridge	 ?Univ	 ?Pr.	 ????.	 ? 2007.	 ? ?Environmental	 ? Public	 ? Voluntary	 ? Programs	 ? Reconsidered.?	 ? Policy	 ?Studies	 ? Journal	 ? 35	 ? (4):	 ? 723?750.	 ? doi:10.1111/j.1541-??0072.2007.00245.x.	 ?http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-??0072.2007.00245.x.	 ?Maier,	 ? Gunther,	 ? and	 ? Sabine	 ? Sedlacek,	 ? ed.	 ? 2005.	 ? Spillovers	 ? and	 ? Innovations:	 ? Space,	 ?Environment,	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Economy.	 ?Vol.	 ?4.	 ?Interdisciplinary	 ?Studies	 ?in	 ?Economics	 ?and	 ?Management.	 ?Vienna,	 ?Austria:	 ?Springer-??Verlag.	 ?March,	 ? J.	 ? G.	 ? 1991.	 ? ?How	 ? Decisions	 ? Happen	 ? in	 ? Organizations.?	 ? Human?Computer	 ?Interaction	 ? 6	 ? (2):	 ? 95	 ? ?	 ? 117.	 ?http://www.informaworld.com/10.1207/s15327051hci0602_1.	 ?March,	 ? J.	 ? G.,	 ? and	 ? J.	 ? P.	 ? Olsen.	 ? 1975.	 ? ?The	 ? Uncertainty	 ? of	 ? the	 ? Past:	 ? Organizational	 ?Learning	 ? Under	 ? Ambiguity.?	 ? European	 ? Journal	 ? of	 ? Political	 ? Research	 ? 3	 ? (2)	 ?(June):	 ? 147?171.	 ? doi:10.1111/j.1475-??6765.1975.tb00521.x.	 ?http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1475-??6765.1975.tb00521.x/abstract.	 ?Margolis,	 ?Joshua	 ?D.,	 ?and	 ?James	 ?P.	 ?Walsh.	 ?2003.	 ??Misery	 ?Loves	 ?Companies:	 ?Rethinking	 ?Social	 ?Initiatives	 ?by	 ?Business.?	 ?Administrative	 ?Science	 ?Quarterly	 ?48	 ?(2)	 ?(June):	 ?268?305.	 ?doi:10.2307/3556659.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/3556659.	 ?Mascarelli,	 ?Amanda	 ?Leigh.	 ?2009.	 ??How	 ?Green	 ?Is	 ?Your	 ?Campus??	 ?Nature	 ?461	 ?(7261):	 ?154+.	 ? doi:Article.	 ?http://go.galegroup.com/ps/i.do?id=GALE%7CA208276373&v=2.1&u=ubcolumbia&it=r&p=HRCA&sw=w.	 ?Mason,	 ?Charles	 ?F.,	 ?and	 ?Andrew	 ?J.	 ?Plantinga.	 ?2013.	 ??The	 ?Additionality	 ?Problem	 ?with	 ?Offsets:	 ? Optimal	 ? Contracts	 ? for	 ? Carbon	 ? Sequestration	 ? in	 ? Forests.?	 ? Journal	 ? of	 ?Environmental	 ? Economics	 ? and	 ? Management	 ? 66	 ? (1)	 ? (July):	 ? 1?14.	 ?doi:10.1016/j.jeem.2013.02.003.	 ?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0095069613000193.	 ?May,	 ? Peter	 ? J.	 ? 2003.	 ? ?Performance-??Based	 ? Regulation	 ? and	 ? Regulatory	 ? Regimes:	 ? The	 ?Saga	 ? of	 ? Leaky	 ? Buildings.?	 ? Law	 ? &	 ? Policy	 ? 25	 ? (4):	 ? 381?401.	 ?http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0265-??8240.2003.00155.x.	 ????.	 ? 2005.	 ? ?Regulation	 ? and	 ? Compliance	 ? Motivations:	 ? Examining	 ? Different	 ?Approaches.?	 ? Public	 ? Administration	 ? Review	 ? 65	 ? (1)	 ? (January):	 ? 31?44.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/3542579.	 ?May,	 ?Peter	 ? J.,	 ? and	 ?Raymond	 ? J.	 ?Burby.	 ?1996.	 ? ?Coercive	 ?Versus	 ?Cooperative	 ?Policies:	 ?Comparing	 ? Intergovernmental	 ? Mandate	 ? Performance.?	 ? Journal	 ? of	 ? Policy	 ?	 ? 163	 ?Analysis	 ? and	 ? Management	 ? 15	 ? (2)	 ? (April):	 ? 171?201.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/3325534.	 ?Ministry	 ? of	 ? Community,	 ? Sport	 ? &	 ? Cultural	 ? Development,	 ? B.C.	 ? 2013a.	 ? ?LGD:	 ? Green	 ?Communities	 ? -??	 ? Targets.?	 ? Accessed	 ? September	 ? 5.	 ?http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/greencommunities/climate_action_charter.htm.	 ????.	 ? 2013b.	 ? ?LGD:	 ? Green	 ? Communities	 ? -??	 ? Climate	 ? Action	 ? Revenue	 ? Incentive	 ?Program.?	 ? Accessed	 ? September	 ? 5.	 ?http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/greencommunities/carip.htm.	 ?Ministry	 ? of	 ? Environment,	 ? B.C.	 ? 2008.	 ? ?Climate	 ? Action	 ? Plan.?	 ?http://www.livesmartbc.ca/attachments/climateaction_plan_web.pdf.	 ????.	 ?2009.	 ??Getting	 ?to	 ?Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government?.	 ?Climate	 ?Action	 ?Secretariat,	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ????.	 ?2010.	 ??Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Update	 ?2009?.	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ????.	 ? 2011.	 ? ?Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? B.C.	 ? -??	 ? Transforming	 ? B.C.?s	 ? Public	 ? Sector?.	 ? Climate	 ?Action	 ? Secretariat,	 ? Ministry	 ? of	 ? Environment,	 ? B.C.	 ?http://www.livesmartbc.ca/attachments/carbon_neutral_action_reports/CarbonNeutralBC-??transformingBCpublicsector.pdf.	 ????.	 ? 2012a.	 ? ?Moving	 ? Forward	 ? with	 ? Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Government:	 ? Engagement	 ?Report.?	 ? http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/mitigation/pdfs/Moving-??forward-??with-??CNG-??engagement-??report.pdf.	 ????.	 ? 2012b.	 ? ?B.C.?s	 ? Carbon-??neutral	 ? Government	 ? Takes	 ? Next	 ? Step.?	 ? April	 ? 5.	 ?http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-??2013/2012ENV0016-??000428.htm.	 ????.	 ? 2012c.	 ? ?Making	 ? Progress	 ? on	 ? B.C.?s	 ? Climate	 ? Action	 ? Plan?.	 ? Climate	 ? Action	 ?Secretariat,	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ????.	 ?2012d.	 ? ?Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?B.C.	 ? -??	 ? Leading	 ?Change	 ?&	 ? Inspiring	 ?Action	 ? in	 ?B.C.?s	 ?Public	 ?Sector?.	 ?Climate	 ?Action	 ?Secretariat,	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ?Environment,	 ?B.C.	 ????.	 ?2012e.	 ??British	 ?Columbia	 ?Greenhouse	 ?Gas	 ?Inventory	 ?Report	 ?2010?.	 ?Ministry	 ?of	 ? Environment,	 ? B.C.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/mitigation/ghg_inventory/pdf/pir-??2010-??full-??report.pdf.	 ????.	 ?2012f.	 ? ?School	 ?Districts	 ?Get	 ?Funding	 ? for	 ?Energy	 ?Efficiency	 ?Upgrades.?	 ? June	 ?19.	 ? http://www2.news.gov.bc.ca/news_releases_2009-??2013/2012ENV0040-??000889.htm.	 ????.	 ?2012g.	 ??2012	 ?B.C.	 ?Best	 ?Practices	 ?Methodology	 ?For	 ?Quantifying	 ?Greenhouse	 ?Gas	 ? Emissions	 ? Including	 ? Guidance	 ? For	 ? Public	 ? Sector	 ? Organizations,	 ? Local	 ?Governments	 ? And	 ? Community	 ? Emissions.?	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/mitigation/pdfs/BC-??Best-??Practices-??Methodology-??for-??Quantifying-??Greenhouse-??Gas-??Emissions.pdf.	 ?	 ? 164	 ????.	 ?2013.	 ??Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Government	 ?2012	 ?-??	 ?Doing	 ?Our	 ?Part	 ?To	 ?Create	 ?Clean,	 ?Healthy	 ? Communities?.	 ? Ministry	 ? of	 ? Environment,	 ? B.C.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/reports/cnar/CarbonNeutralBC-??2012.pdf.	 ????.	 ? 2013a.	 ? ?CAS	 ? -??	 ? Community	 ? Climate	 ? Action.?	 ? Accessed	 ? September	 ? 5.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/mitigation/charter.html.	 ????.	 ? 2013b.	 ? ?CAS	 ? -??	 ? Public	 ? Sector	 ? Energy	 ? Conservation	 ? Agreement.?	 ? Accessed	 ?August	 ?8.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/mitigation/pseca.html.	 ????.	 ? 2013c.	 ? ?CAS	 ? -??	 ? Public	 ? Sector	 ? Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Action	 ? Reports.?	 ? Accessed	 ?August	 ?8.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/mitigation/cnar.html.	 ????.	 ? 2013d.	 ? ?CAS	 ? -??	 ? Community	 ? Energy	 ? and	 ? Emissions	 ? Inventory	 ? Reports.?	 ?Accessed	 ? September	 ? 12.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/mitigation/ceei/reports.html.	 ?Murray,	 ?Brian	 ?C.,	 ?Brent	 ?Sohngen,	 ?and	 ?Martin	 ?T.	 ?Ross.	 ?2007.	 ??Economic	 ?Consequences	 ?of	 ? Consideration	 ?of	 ? Permanence,	 ? Leakage	 ? and	 ?Additionality	 ? for	 ? Soil	 ? Carbon	 ?Sequestration	 ? Projects.?	 ? Climatic	 ? Change	 ? 80	 ? (1-??2)	 ? (January):	 ? 127?143.	 ?http://search.proquest.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/docview/198504092/abstract?accountid=14656.	 ?Nilsson,	 ?Andreas,	 ?Chris	 ?von	 ?Borgstede,	 ?and	 ?Anders	 ?Biel.	 ?2004.	 ??Willingness	 ?to	 ?Accept	 ?Climate	 ? Change	 ? Strategies:	 ? The	 ? Effect	 ? of	 ? Values	 ? and	 ? Norms.?	 ? Journal	 ? of	 ?Environmental	 ? Psychology	 ? 24	 ? (3)	 ? (September):	 ? 267?277.	 ?doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2004.06.002.	 ?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272494404000404.	 ?Nivola,	 ? P.	 ? S,	 ? and	 ? J.	 ? A	 ? Shields.	 ? 2001.	 ?Managing	 ?Green	 ?Mandates:	 ? Local	 ? Rigors	 ? of	 ?US	 ?Environmental	 ?Regulation.	 ?Washington,	 ?D.C.:	 ?Brookings	 ?Institution	 ?Press.	 ?Northrop,	 ? M.	 ? 2004.	 ? ?Leading	 ? by	 ? Example:	 ? Profitable	 ? Corporate	 ? Strategies	 ? and	 ?Successful	 ?Public	 ?Policies	 ?for	 ?Reducing	 ?Greenhouse	 ?Gas	 ?Emissions.?	 ?Widener	 ?Law	 ?Journal	 ?14:	 ?21.	 ?Olewiler,	 ?N.	 ?2009.	 ??Climate	 ?Change:	 ?BC?s	 ?Progress	 ?Toward	 ?A	 ?Low-??Carbon	 ?Economy.?	 ?http://www.bcbc.com/Documents/2020_200910_Olewiler.pdf.	 ?Olewiler,	 ? Nancy.	 ? 2012.	 ? ?Smart	 ? Environmental	 ? Policy	 ?with	 ? Full-??Cost	 ? Pricing?.	 ? 12-??6.	 ?SPP	 ? Research	 ? Papers.	 ? University	 ? of	 ? Calgary	 ? School	 ? of	 ? Public	 ? Policy.	 ?http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2028120.	 ?Rabe,	 ? Barry	 ? G.	 ? 2008.	 ? ?States	 ? on	 ? Steroids:	 ? The	 ? Intergovernmental	 ? Odyssey	 ? of	 ?American	 ?Climate	 ?Policy.?	 ?Review	 ?of	 ?Policy	 ?Research	 ?25	 ? (2)	 ? (March	 ?1):	 ?105?128.	 ? doi:10.1111/j.1541-??1338.2007.00314.x.	 ?http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1541-??1338.2007.00314.x/abstract.	 ?Rivers,	 ? Nicholas,	 ? and	 ? Brandon	 ? Schaufele.	 ? 2013.	 ? ?Salience	 ? of	 ? Carbon	 ? Taxes	 ? in	 ? the	 ?Gasoline	 ?Market?.	 ? SSRN	 ? Scholarly	 ? Paper	 ? ID	 ? 2131468.	 ? Rochester,	 ? NY:	 ? Social	 ?Science	 ?Research	 ?Network.	 ?http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2131468.	 ?	 ? 165	 ?Sijm,	 ? JPM,	 ? OJ	 ? Kuik,	 ? M.	 ? Patel,	 ? V.	 ? Oikonomou,	 ? E.	 ?Worrell,	 ? P.	 ? Lako,	 ? E.	 ? Annevelink,	 ? GJ	 ?Nabuurs,	 ? and	 ? HW	 ? Elbersen.	 ? 2005.	 ? ?Spillovers	 ? of	 ? Climate	 ? Policy	 ? -??	 ? An	 ?Assessment	 ? of	 ? the	 ? Incidence	 ?of	 ? Carbon	 ?Leakage	 ? and	 ? Induced	 ?Technological	 ?Change	 ? Due	 ? to	 ? CO2	 ? Abatement	 ? Measures?.	 ? C-??-??05-??014.	 ? Amsterdam,	 ?Netherlands:	 ? Energy	 ? Research	 ? Centre	 ? of	 ? the	 ? Netherlands	 ? ECN.	 ?http://hdl.handle.net/10029/8960.	 ?Simon	 ? Fraser	 ? University.	 ? 2008.	 ? ?SFU	 ? Sustainability	 ? Advisory	 ? Committee	 ? Annual	 ?Report	 ? 2007/08?.	 ? Simon	 ? Fraser	 ? University.	 ?http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/sac/documents/SAC%20Annual%20Report%2007-??08%20Final.pdf.	 ????.	 ? 2009.	 ? ?Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Action	 ? Report	 ? 2008?.	 ? Simon	 ? Fraser	 ? University.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/reports/cnar/Simon_Fraser_University.pdf.	 ????.	 ? 2011.	 ? ?Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Action	 ? Report	 ? 2010?.	 ? Simon	 ? Fraser	 ? University.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/reports/cnar/SimonFraserUniversity_2010.pdf.	 ????.	 ? 2012a.	 ? ?Operating	 ? Budget	 ? &	 ? Financial	 ? Plan	 ? 2012/2013.?	 ?http://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/finance/Publication/2012_13_Operating_Budget_and_Financial_Plan.pdf.	 ????.	 ? 2012b.	 ? ?Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Action	 ? Report	 ? 2011?.	 ? Simon	 ? Fraser	 ? University.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/reports/cnar/SimonFraserUniversity_2011.pdf.	 ????.	 ? 2013a.	 ? ?SFU	 ? Facilities	 ? Services	 ? -??	 ? Energy	 ? Commitment	 ? -??	 ? Sustainable	 ?Operations.?	 ? http://www.sfu.ca/fs/Green-??Services/Energy-??Conservation/Energy-??Commitment.html.	 ????.	 ? 2013b.	 ? ?Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Action	 ? Report	 ? 2012?.	 ? Simon	 ? Fraser	 ? University.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/reports/cnar/SimonFraserUniversity_2012.pdf.	 ?Simon,	 ?H.	 ?A.	 ?1957.	 ?Administrative	 ?Behavior.	 ?2nd	 ?ed.	 ?New	 ?York:	 ?Macmillan.	 ????.	 ?1991.	 ? ?Organizations	 ?and	 ?Markets.?	 ?The	 ?Journal	 ?of	 ?Economic	 ?Perspectives	 ?5	 ?(2)	 ?(April):	 ?25?44.	 ?http://www.jstor.org/stable/1942684.	 ?Simpson,	 ?Bob.	 ?2011.	 ??Taxing	 ?the	 ?Public	 ?for	 ?a	 ?Private	 ?Good	 ?Is	 ?a	 ?Bad	 ?Idea.?	 ?Vancouver	 ?Sun,	 ?July	 ?4.	 ?Sorrell,	 ? S.,	 ? J.	 ? Schleich,	 ? S.	 ? Scott,	 ? E.	 ? O?Malley,	 ? F.	 ? Trace,	 ? E.	 ? Boede,	 ? K.	 ? Ostertag,	 ? and	 ? P.	 ?Radgen.	 ?2000.	 ??Reducing	 ?Barriers	 ?to	 ?Energy	 ?Efficiency	 ?in	 ?Public	 ?and	 ?Private	 ?Organizations.?	 ? SPRU,	 ? Univ.	 ? of	 ? Sussex,	 ? Brighton,	 ? UK.	 ?http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/spru/publications/reports/barriers/finaltoc.pdf.	 ?Stafford,	 ? Sarah	 ? L.	 ? 2011.	 ? ?How	 ? Green	 ? Is	 ? Your	 ? Campus?	 ? An	 ? Analysis	 ? of	 ? the	 ? Factors	 ?That	 ?Drive	 ?Universities	 ? to	 ?Embrace	 ? Sustainability.?	 ?Contemporary	 ?Economic	 ?Policy	 ? 29	 ? (3):	 ? 337?356.	 ? doi:10.1111/j.1465-??7287.2010.00231.x.	 ?	 ? 166	 ?http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1465-??7287.2010.00231.x/abstract.	 ?Stake,	 ? Robert	 ? E.	 ? 2005.	 ? ?Qualitative	 ? Case	 ? Studies.?	 ? In	 ? The	 ? SAGE	 ? Handbook	 ? of	 ?Qualitative	 ?Research,	 ?edited	 ?by	 ?Norman	 ?K.	 ?Denzin	 ?and	 ?Yvonna	 ?S.	 ?Lincoln,	 ?3rd	 ?ed.	 ?Thousand	 ?Oaks,	 ?California:	 ?Sage.	 ?Statistics	 ?Canada.	 ?2013.	 ??Population	 ?by	 ?Year,	 ?by	 ?Province	 ?and	 ?Territory	 ?(Number).?	 ?Accessed	 ? September	 ? 11.	 ? http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-??tableaux/sum-??som/l01/cst01/demo02a-??eng.htm.	 ?Stavins,	 ? Robert	 ? N.	 ? 2003.	 ? ?Experience	 ? with	 ? Market-??based	 ? Environmental	 ? Policy	 ?Instruments.?	 ? In	 ? Environmental	 ? Degradation	 ? and	 ? Institutional	 ? Responses,	 ?edited	 ?by	 ?Karl-??Goran	 ?Maler	 ?and	 ?Jeffrey	 ?R.	 ?Vincent,	 ?Volume	 ?1	 ?Chapter	 ?9:355?435.	 ? The	 ? Handbook	 ? of	 ? Environmental	 ? Economics.	 ? Elsevier.	 ?http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/B7P5M-??4FD79WK-??G/2/8ec5ee1819960942d5690b9efb8557b9.	 ????.	 ? 2011.	 ? ?The	 ? Problem	 ? of	 ? the	 ? Commons:	 ? Still	 ? Unsettled	 ? after	 ? 100	 ? Years.?	 ?American	 ? Economic	 ? Review	 ? 101	 ? (1)	 ? (February):	 ? 81?108.	 ?doi:10.1257/aer.101.1.81.	 ?http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.101.1.81.	 ?Tashakkori,	 ? Abbas,	 ? and	 ?Charles	 ?Teddlie.	 ? 2003.	 ? ?Major	 ? Issues	 ? and	 ?Controversies	 ? in	 ?the	 ? Use	 ? of	 ? Mixed	 ? Methods	 ? in	 ? the	 ? Social	 ? and	 ? Behavioral	 ? Sciences.?	 ? In	 ?Handbook	 ?of	 ?Mixed	 ?Methods	 ?in	 ?Social	 ?&	 ?Behavioral	 ?Research,	 ?edited	 ?by	 ?Abbas	 ?Tashakkori	 ? and	 ? Charles	 ? Teddlie.	 ? Thousand	 ? Oaks,	 ? California:	 ? SAGE	 ?Publications.	 ?Taylor,	 ?Serge.	 ?1984.	 ?Making	 ?Bureaucracies	 ?Think.	 ?Stanford	 ?University	 ?Press.	 ?Teddlie,	 ? Charles,	 ? and	 ? Fen	 ? Yu.	 ? 2007.	 ? ?Mixed	 ? Methods	 ? Sampling	 ? A	 ? Typology	 ? With	 ?Examples.?	 ? Journal	 ? of	 ? Mixed	 ? Methods	 ? Research	 ? 1	 ? (1)	 ? (January):	 ? 77?100.	 ?doi:10.1177/2345678906292430.	 ?http://mmr.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/content/1/1/77.	 ?UBC	 ? Campus	 ? Sustainability	 ? Office.	 ? 2009.	 ? ?Energy	 ? and	 ? Climate	 ? Management	 ? Case	 ?Study.?	 ?http://sustain.ubc.ca/sites/sustain.ubc.ca/files/uploads/CampusSustainability/CS_PDFs/CaseStudies/EnergyManagement_CaseStudy.pdf.	 ?University	 ?of	 ?British	 ?Columbia.	 ?2010.	 ??UBC	 ?Vancouver	 ?Campus	 ?Climate	 ?Action	 ?Plan	 ?2010-??2015.?	 ?http://www.sustain.ubc.ca/sites/default/files/uploads/pdfs/UBC%20Vancouver%20CAP%20Final.pdf.	 ????.	 ? 2011.	 ? ?Fall	 ? 2010	 ? Transportation	 ? Status	 ? Report.?	 ?http://transportation.ubc.ca/files/2011/04/TSR_Fall2010_03Aprl11.pdf.	 ????.	 ? 2012a.	 ? ?UBC	 ? 2012/13	 ? Operating	 ? Budget	 ? -??	 ? Presentation	 ? to	 ? the	 ? Board	 ? of	 ?Governors.?	 ?http://www.finance.ubc.ca/sites/finance.ubc.ca/files/uploads/budget/docu	 ? 167	 ?ments/2012-??2013%20Operating%20Budget%20Presentation%20-??%20June22v1.pdf.	 ????.	 ?2012b.	 ??The	 ?University	 ?Community	 ?on	 ?Campus:	 ?UBC?s	 ?Housing	 ?Action	 ?Plan.?	 ?http://ubcvhousingactionplan.sites.olt.ubc.ca/.	 ????.	 ? 2013.	 ? ?GHG	 ? Inventory.?	 ? Accessed	 ? September	 ? 13.	 ?http://sustain.ubc.ca/campus-??initiatives/climate-??energy/ghg-??inventory.	 ?Van	 ?Kooten,	 ?G.	 ?Cornelis,	 ?Tim	 ?Bogle,	 ?and	 ?Frans	 ?P.	 ?de	 ?Vries.	 ?2012.	 ??Rent	 ?Seeking	 ?and	 ?the	 ?Smoke	 ?and	 ?Mirrors	 ?Game	 ?in	 ?the	 ?Creation	 ?of	 ?Forest	 ?Sector	 ?Carbon	 ?Credits?	 ?2012-??06.	 ?REPA	 ?Working	 ?Paper	 ?(January).	 ?Vancouver	 ? Community	 ? College.	 ? 2009.	 ? ?Carbon	 ? Neutral	 ? Action	 ? Report	 ? 2008?.	 ?Vancouver	 ? Community	 ? College.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/reports/cnar/Vancouver_Community_College.pdf.	 ????.	 ?2013.	 ??Carbon	 ?Neutral	 ?Action	 ?Report	 ?2012?.	 ?Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College.	 ?http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/cas/reports/cnar/VancouverCC_2012.pdf.	 ?Wal-??mart	 ? Watch.	 ? 2007.	 ? ?It?s	 ? Not	 ? Easy	 ? Being	 ? Green:	 ? The	 ? Truth	 ? About	 ? Wal-??mart?s	 ?Environmental	 ? Makeover.?	 ?http://walmartwatch.com/img/blog/enviro_white_paper.pdf.	 ?Webb,	 ? Janette.	 ? 2012.	 ? ?Climate	 ? Change	 ? and	 ? Society:	 ? The	 ? Chimera	 ? of	 ? Behaviour	 ?Change	 ? Technologies.?	 ? Sociology	 ? 46	 ? (1)	 ? (February	 ? 1):	 ? 109?125.	 ?doi:10.1177/0038038511419196.	 ?http://soc.sagepub.com.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/content/46/1/109.	 ?Webster,	 ? Ashley,	 ? and	 ? Janet	 ? Moore.	 ? 2009.	 ? ?Taking	 ? Action:	 ? British	 ? Columbia?s	 ?Universities	 ?and	 ?Colleges	 ?Respond	 ?to	 ?the	 ?Greenhouse	 ?Gas	 ?Reduction	 ?Targets	 ?Act.?	 ? http://www.walkingthetalk.bc.ca/files/TakingAction%20-??%20Web.pdf.	 ?Weiland,	 ? Paul	 ? S.	 ? 1998.	 ? ?Unfunded	 ?Environmental	 ?Mandates:	 ? Causes,	 ? Burdens,	 ? and	 ?Benefits.?	 ?Harvard	 ?Environmental	 ?Law	 ?Review	 ?22:	 ?283?311.	 ?Wichelman,	 ? A.	 ? F.	 ? 1976.	 ? ?Administrative	 ? Agency	 ? Implementation	 ? of	 ? the	 ? National	 ?Environmental	 ? Policy	 ?Act	 ? of	 ? 1969:	 ? a	 ? Conceptual	 ? Framework	 ? for	 ? Explaining	 ?Differential	 ? Response.?	 ? Natural	 ? Resources	 ? Journal	 ? 16:	 ? 263?300.	 ?http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-??cgi-??bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/narj16&section=24.	 ?Wikipedia.	 ? 2013a.	 ? ?Douglas	 ? College	 ? -??	 ?Wikipedia,	 ? the	 ? Free	 ? Encyclopedia.?	 ? Accessed	 ?September	 ?10.	 ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_College.	 ????.	 ?2013b.	 ??Vancouver	 ?Community	 ?College	 ?-??	 ?Wikipedia,	 ?the	 ?Free	 ?Encyclopedia.?	 ?Accessed	 ? September	 ? 10.	 ?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vancouver_Community_College.	 ?Wilson,	 ? James	 ?Q.,	 ?and	 ?Patricia	 ?Rachal.	 ?1977.	 ??Can	 ?the	 ?Government	 ?Regulate	 ?Itself??	 ?Public	 ?Interest	 ?(46):	 ?3.	 ?	 ? 168	 ?Worth,	 ? Dan.	 ? 2005.	 ? ?Accelerating	 ? Towards	 ? Climate	 ? Neutrality	 ? with	 ? the	 ? US	 ?Government	 ? Stuck	 ? in	 ? Neutral:	 ? The	 ? Emerging	 ? Role	 ? of	 ? US	 ? Businesses,	 ? Cities,	 ?States,	 ? and	 ? Universities	 ? in	 ? Aggressively	 ? Reducing	 ? Greenhouse	 ? Gas	 ?Emissions.?	 ? Sustainable	 ? Dev.	 ? Law	 ? &	 ? Policy	 ? 5:	 ? 4.	 ?http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-??cgi-??bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/sdlp5&section=28.	 ?WRI	 ?and	 ?WBCSD.	 ?2004.	 ??The	 ?Greenhouse	 ?Gas	 ?Protocol:	 ?A	 ?Corporate	 ?Accounting	 ?and	 ?Reporting	 ?Standard,	 ?Revised	 ?Edition?.	 ?World	 ?Resources	 ?Institute	 ?and	 ?World	 ?Business	 ? Counc