University of Southern University of Tennessee, Knoxville … TAMU... · University of South Florida University of Southern University of Southern Maine University of St. Thomas University

University of South FloridaUniversity of Southern

University of Southern MaineUniversity of St. Thomas

University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleUniversity of Texas - Austin

University of Texas at DallasUniversity of Texas Health

University of Texas Rio Grande ValleyUniversity of the Sciences in Philadelphia

University of ToledoUniversity of Vermont

University of WashingtonUniversity of West Florida

University of Wisconsin - MadisonVanderbilt University

Virginia Commonwealth UniversityWake Forest University

Washburn UniversityWashington State University

Washington State University - Tri-Cities CampusWashington State University - Vancouver

Washington University in St. LouisWayne State University

Wellesley CollegeWesleyan University

West Chester UniversityWest Virginia Health Science Center

West Virginia UniversityWestern Oregon University

Westfield State UniversityWidener University

Williams CollegeWorcester Polytechnic Institute

Worcester State UniversityXavier University

Texas A&M UniversityFY16 Sustainability Final Presentation

May 2017

© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.2

What We DoData, software and expertise for all phases of The Building Lifecycle

Analyze and benchmark facilities against others in the industry.

Create accurate estimates using industry-standard RSMeans data.

Use detailed data and workflow tools to competitively contract construction.

Manage change orders and construction projects with proven systems and services.

Optimize ongoing maintenance, repairs and operations.

Sustainability Solutions Introduction


Who Else Partners With Sightlines?

Member Characteristics:• 60% Private • 40% Public • 55% Signatories of ACUPCC• 45% Charter Signatories

Members Diverse in: • Size & Student Population• Setting & Climate Zone• Energy Sources & Uses


TAMU’s Peer Comparison GroupTAMU is not an ACUPCC signatory

Institution SizeTechnical

Complexity (1-5)Climate

ZoneUrbanization

American University 2.8M GSF 3.8 3 Large City

Arizona State University 7.7M GSF 3.6 5Urban Fringe of a Large City

Clemson University 4.2M GSF 3.4 4Urban Fringe of a Mid-Size City

George Mason University 7.7M GSF 3.5 3Urban Fringe of a Large City

The University of Alabama 14.3M GSF 3.3 5 Mid-Size City

University of Arkansas 4.1M GSF 3.2 4 Mid-Size City

University of Denver 4.7M GSF 2.9 2 Large City

Virginia Commonwealth University

7.1M GSF 3.2 4 Mid-Size City

Comparative Considerations

Size, technical complexity, region, geographic location,

and setting are all factors included in the selection of

peer institutions

Schools in BOLD are ACUPCC signatories


Components of TAMU’s Emissions Profile

Scope 1

Direct GHGs

• On-Campus Stationary (Cogen plant and other)

• Vehicle Fleet Fuel

• Refrigerants

• Fertilizer

Scope 2

Upstream GHGs

• Purchased Electricity

Scope 3

Indirect GHGs

• Faculty/Staff/ Student Commuting

• Directly Financed Air & Ground Travel

• Study Abroad Travel

• Solid Waste

• Wastewater

• Paper Purchasing

• Transmission & Distribution Losses

Emissions Summary


Overall Reduction in Emissions Since 2004Emissions increasing since FY13

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

MTC

DE

Total Emissions Over Time

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

19% reduction in emissions


Great Improvements Despite Growing Campus

-40%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%


% c

han

ge f

rom

FY0

4

Change in Emissions vs. Change in Campus Size and PopulationIndexed to FY2004

Gross Emissions Campus GSF Campus Population FTE

+47%

+40%

-19%

Emissions increasing with campus density since FY13


Benchmarking Emissions & Source DataTwo ways to normalize emissions for comparison

GHG Emissions per 1,000 GSF

Stresses intensity of operations.

Gross GHG Emissions

Total GSF in FootprintX 1,000

GHG Emissions per Student FTE

Stresses efficient use of space.

Gross GHG Emissions

Total Student FTE


Historical Trending of Normalized TAMU EmissionsMore substantial reduction when looking at emissions per student educated

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

MTC

DE/

GSF

Gross Emissions – Per GSF


0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

MTC

DE/

Stu

den

t

Gross Emissions – Per Student FTE


Distribution of Emissions by Level of ControlFY2016 emissions by source and scope

37%

34%

29%

Emissions by Scope


132,558 10,858

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000MTCDE

Scope 1 Sources

Co-gen Plant Other On-Campus Stationary Direct Transportation Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture

1,5

62

34,926 32,849 41,307 10,760

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000MTCDE

Scope 3 Sources

Commuting Travel Waste/Wastewater Paper Purchases T&D Losses

142,299

- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000MTCDE

Scope 2 Sources

Purchased Electricity

Emissions Comparison


TAMU is Least Dense Compared to PeersDensity factor has an effect on emissions comparisons

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

TAMU 04 TAMU 16 A B C D E F G H

Use

rs/1

00

,00

0 G

SF

Density Factor

Peer average

Ordered by Density Factor


TAMU Reduced Emissions at Greater Rate Than PeersTAMU added more to campus space and population while decreasing emissions

40%

26%

47%

37%

-19%

5%

-30%

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

TAMU Peers% C

han

ge f

rom

FY0

4

Change on TAMU’s Campus vs. PeersIndexed to FY04

Space Population Gross Emissions


TAMU Has High Emissions Compared to Peers

0

5

10

15

20

25

TAMU A B C D E F G H

MTC

DE/

GSF

Gross Emissions – Per GSF

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Peer Avg

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

TAMU A B C D E F G H

MTC

DE/

Stu

den

t

Gross Emissions – Per Student Educated

While being less dense, TAMU still has more emissions than peers

Ordered by Density Factor


Cogeneration Drives TAMU Scope 1 Emissions

38%

13%

49%

TAMU FY16 Emissions by Scope


18%

49%

33%

Peer FY16 Emissions by Scope


Utilities – Scope 1 & 2


TAMU’s Energy Consumption Higher than Peers

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

BTU

/GSF

(Th

ou

san

ds)

TAMU’s Utility Consumption

Stationary Fuel Purchased Electric

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

BTU

/GSF

(Th

ou

san

ds)

Peer Utility Consumption

Total energy, not regional adjusted


Putting Technical Complexity Context

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

A B C D E F G H TAMU

BTU

/GSF

TAMU Utility Emissions Compared to Peers

Scope 1 Scope 2

TAMU has the most energy consumption even though less technically complex

Ordered by Technical Complexity


Total Utility Emissions Decreased 27%

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000


MTC

DE

Utility Emissions

Scope 1 Scope 2

Plant Renovation No Cogen

Continued decreases through both consumption and intensity improvements

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

20,000


MTD

CE

Other Scope 1 Emissions

Direct Transportation Refrigerants Agriculture


Other Scope 1 Emissions Are Small Portion of TotalDirect Transportation is largest contributor to other Scope 1 Emissions in FY16

97%

3%

Emissions by Scope

Everything Else Other Scope 1

Scope 3

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

MTC

DE

Scope 3 Emissions

Commuting Travel Waste Paper T&D


Scope 3 Emissions Have Increased Since FY13Commuting emissions have doubled since FY04

74%

26%

TAMU FY16 Emissions

Everything Else Scope 3

10% increase in Scope 3 emissions since FY2004


Updated Commuting DataCommuting emissions make up larger portion of emissions mix

3%

97%

FY04

Commuting Emissions All Other

7%

93%

FY12


8%

92%

FY16


0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50


MTC

DE/

FTE

Commuting Emissions

Students Employees


Student vs. Employee Commuting EmissionsStudents contribution fewer emissions relating to commuting

47%

53%

FY04

65%

35%

FY16

Students Employees

Commuting Emissions

Mix

65%

35%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY04 FY12 FY16

Employee commuting Mix

Carbon Free Mass Transit Carpool Drive Alone

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

FY04 FY12 FY16

Student commuting Mix

Commuting Distance: FY04: 5 miFY12: 8 miFY16: 5 mi


Students Are Most Carbon Intensive Over TimeFY16 Commuting Emissions: 34,926 MTCDE

65%

35%Commuting Distance:

FY04: 5 miFY12: 9 miFY16: 6 mi

Waste Profile


TAMU’s Has A Larger Waste Profile Than Peers

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16

Lbs/

Cam

pu

s U

ser

Waste Production

TAMU Peers

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

TAMU Peers

Waste Diversion Rates

Landfilled Recycled Composted Other Diversions


Total Waste Emissions are Increasing

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000


MTC

DE

TAMU Waste Emissions

FY16 waste emissions are back to FY06 levels

Documents

University of Southern University of Tennessee, Knoxville … TAMU... · University of South Florida University of Southern University of Southern Maine University of St. Thomas University