Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of Nebraska Medical Center
University of Nebraska Omaha
University of New Brunswick
University of New Hampshire
University of New Haven
University of New Mexico
University of North Florida
University of North Texas
University of Northern Iowa
University of Notre Dame
University of Oregon
University of Ottawa
University of Pennsylvania
University of Redlands
University of Rhode Island
University of Rochester
University of San Diego
University of San Francisco
University of Saskatchewan
University of Southern Maine
University of Southern Mississippi
University of St. Thomas
University of Tennessee Health Science Center
University of Tennessee, Knoxville
University of Texas at Dallas
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
University of Vermont
University of Washington
University of West Florida
Vanderbilt University
Virginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Department of General Services
Wake Forest University
Washburn University
Washington University in St. Louis
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
West Chester University
West Liberty University
West Virginia Health Science Center
West Virginia Institute of Technology
West Virginia School of Osteopathic Medicine
West Virginia State University
West Virginia University
Western Connecticut State University
Western Oregon University
Westfield State University
Exploring the State of
Sustainability in Higher Education
2015
Presented by Jim Kadamus & Jennifer Andrews
January 27, 2016
2
Today’s Presenters
Jim Kadamus
Senior Advisor; Sightlines
Jennifer Andrews
Sustainability Project Director; UNH
Sustainability Institute
3
Agenda
Introduction and background – how we got here
and why we conducted the study
Detailed summary of findings
Factors affecting energy consumption and
emissions
Which campuses are making progress and why?
Conclusions and recommendations
4
Feel Free to Start a Dialogue With Our Presenters
Enter questions in the box at any time
Enter questions
here at any
point during the
webinar
Presentation slides
and webinar
recording will be
sent to each
attendee following
today’s session
5
“The State of Sustainability in Higher Education”
Report on emissions metrics, consumption trends, and strategies available now!
Visit www.sightlines.com to
download your free copy
today
Introduction & Background
6
7
Campus Carbon Calculator™ and CMAP
Helping Campuses Track Their Carbon Footprints Since 2002
8
Carbon Management Hierarchy
“Best practice” approach
Avoid
Reduce
Replace
Offset
The Carbon Management Hierarchy
Actions at the top of
the hierarchy are
more transformative
and lasting in terms of
reducing a company’s
emissions baseline.
Avoid carbon intensive activities
(and rethink business strategy)
Do whatever you do more efficiently
Replace high-carbon energy sources
with low-carbon energy sources
Offset those emissions that can’t be
eliminated by the above
9
Why We Did the Study
To explore and take the first comprehensive look at key sustainability questions
Are campus conservation, efficiency, and fuel-switching initiatives succeeding?
How have changes in enrollment, and a national campus building boom, impacted carbon management efforts?
How much does progress depend on the amount and type of campus capital investment?
How much impact do external factors (e.g. public policies, energy costs, etc.) have?
How can campuses be more strategic and effective in managing carbon and energy footprints?
Is anything missing from the available set of campus sustainability metrics?
10
The Power of Aggregated, Standardized Data
Study methodology
Data Sources
Sightlines Return on Physical
Assets (ROPA) database, with
the CCC calculation methodology
overlaid. This database has
extensive Quality
Assurance/Quality Control
(QA/QC) for its inputs.
CMAP database, with data from
both inputs and outputs of
campus GHG inventories.
Primarily used for comparison and
“reality-checking” the results of
ROPA analysis.
Sightlines Database Distribution
60%40%
Public Private
34%
21%
36%
9%
Comprehensive Research
Small Institutions Community Colleges
11
Operational Boundaries
Boundaries Framework from the GHG Protocol
Detailed Summary of
Findings
12
13
Scope 1 Stationary and Scope 2 Emissions & Consumption Since 2010
Emissions decreased 5%; consumption increased 3%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MT
CD
E
Emissions
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MM
BT
U
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change
14
Normalized Scope 1 Stationary and Scope 2 Emissions & Consumption Since 2007
Emissions decreased 13%, consumption down 2%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MT
CD
E/
1,0
00
GS
F
Emissions
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change
-15%
-13%
-11%
-9%
-7%
-5%
-3%
-1%
1%
3%
5%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
BT
U/G
SF
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
Percent Change
15
Purchased Fossil Emissions & Consumption
Fossil emissions decreased 14%; consumption down 4%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MT
CD
E/
1,0
00 G
SF
Fossil Emissions
Purchased Fossil Percent Change
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
BT
U/G
SF
Fossil Consumption
Purchased Fossil Percent Change
16
Fuel Mix of Fossil Consumption
Rapid shift to natural gas since 2007
74% 75% 76%80% 82% 85% 87% 87%
17%18% 17%
14% 14%12% 10% 10%
9% 7% 7% 5% 4% 3% 3% 3%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Fuel Mix
Natural Gas Coal Other Fuel
17
Purchased Electric Emissions & Consumption
Electric emissions decreased 2%; 1% increase in consumption
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
MT
CD
E/
1,0
00
GS
F
Electric Emissions
Purchased Electric Percent Change
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
2%
3%
4%
5%
0
10,000
20,000
30,000
40,000
50,000
60,000
70,000
80,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
BT
U/G
SF
Electric Consumption
Purchased Electric Percent Change
18
Electric Grid Emissions Impact
Overall improvements in grid emissions
29
08
7%
29
24
2%
-25%
-20%
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
Electric Grid
Change in Electric Grid Emissions (2007 to 2014)
Factors Affecting Energy
Consumption & Emissions
19
20
Total Energy Consumption & Campus Size
Generally, consumption increases with campus size
0
1,000,000
2,000,000
3,000,000
4,000,000
5,000,000
6,000,000
7,000,000
8,000,000
9,000,000
10,000,000
0 5,000,000 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000
To
tal E
ne
rgy C
on
su
mp
tio
n (
MM
BT
U)
Total GSF
21
Campus Space & Enrollment Growth
Space growth has outpaced growth in enrollment
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Space and Enrollment Growth
Space Growth Enrollment Growth
22
Focus on Energy Reduction
Public and private average for energy consumption
-10%
-8%
-6%
-4%
-2%
0%
2%
4%
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Pe
rce
nt
Ch
an
ge
Sin
ce
20
07
BT
U/G
SF
Fossil Consumption Electric Consumption Percent Change of Total Consumption
Public Average Private Average
23
How Are Capital Dollars Being Spent?
Higher investment into envelope/mechanical systems
44%41% 38% 39% 39% 38% 36% 36%
43% 42% 41% 44% 44% 41% 43% 45%
37%38% 42% 41% 42% 43% 44% 41%
41% 40% 41%41% 41%
42%42% 40%
19% 21% 20% 20% 19% 19% 20% 23%16% 18% 18% 15% 15% 17% 15% 15%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Space Renewal & Safety Code Envelope & Building System Infrastructure
Public Average Private Average
24
Campuses Grouped by Change in Consumption
The majority are stable in their consumption
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Reduced Consumption by Morethan 10%
Stable Consumption Increased Consumption by Morethan 10%
# I
ns
titu
tio
ns
Change In Consumption from 2007 to 2014
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric
25
Energy Consumption & Unit Costs
Consumption is higher where unit cost is lower
Degree
Days=6951
Degree
Days= 6426
Degree
Days=7114
Degree
Days=4769
Degree
Days=9922
Degree
Days=15178
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Far West &Southwest
New England Mid-East Plains &Rockies
Southeast Great Lakes
$/M
MB
TU
BT
U/G
SF
Consumption
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric Fossil Unit Cost Electric Unit Cost
26
Emissions & Energy Costs by Region
Regions with lower costs have higher emissions
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
0
5
10
15
20
25
Far West &Southwest
New England Mid-East Plains &Rockies
Southeast Great Lakes
$/M
MB
TU
MT
CD
E/
1,0
00
GS
F
Emissions
Purchased Fossil Purchased Electric Fossil Unit Cost Electric Unit Cost
27
States Ranked by Strength of Energy Efficiency Policy
ACEE annual rankings
28
State Policy Rank & Emissions
States with strong policy have lower emissions
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
20.00
Top Third Middle Third Bottom Third
MT
CD
E/
1,0
00 G
SF
Emissions - ACEEE Energy Efficiency Scorecard
27% Greater
45% Greater
72% Greater
29
State Policy Rank & Consumption
States with strong policy have lower consumption
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
Top Third Middle Third Bottom Third
BT
U/G
SF
Consumption - ACEEE Energy Efficiency Scorecard
18% Greater
4% Greater
22% Greater
Which Campuses Are
Making Progress and Why?
30
31
Emissions and Consumption of Signatories vs. Non-Signatories
Climate Commitment Signatories have 47% lower emissions; 27% lower consumption
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Climate CommitmentSignatory
Non-Signatory
MT
CD
E/
1,0
00 G
SF
2014 Emissions
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
Climate CommitmentSignatory
Non-Signatory
BT
U/G
SF
2014 Consumption
32
ACUPCC Signatories Energy Consumption Over Time
Sustaining consumption reductions is difficult
-9%
-8%
-7%
-6%
-5%
-4%
-3%
-2%
-1%
0%
1%
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Years Since Signing ACUPCC
Percent Change in Energy Consumption (BTU/GSF)
Conclusions & Recommendations
33
34
Conclusion and Key Takeaways
Gross emissions from Stationary Scope 1 and Scope 2 sources are down a modest 5% from 2010-2014, with consumption slightly up. Emissions per square foot were down 13% between 2007 and 2014, with usage only down 2%.
Progress in reducing campus carbon footprints came primarily as a result of fuel switching.
Campuses that have shifted capital investments to envelope and mechanical systems have made more progress in reducing GHG emissions and reducing energy use, while schools with older buildings had to spend more just to keep consumption stable.
Campus size, density, age profile, and capital investment portfolios are key drivers of GHG emissions and energy consumption.
Institutional commitment from leadership will be a key driver in sustainability outcomes.
Energy cost has a big impact on energy consumption.
Public policy and incentives are critical.
35
Strategic Questions
Offering higher education institutions a path to lower emissions and consumption
How important is institutional commitment from campus
leadership to improve carbon emissions and drive
successful sustainability outcomes?
What role does strategic capital investment play in
reducing carbon emissions and how can facilities
challenges be turned into sustainability opportunities?
What opportunities exist to implement renewable energy
strategies and what would a large-scale adoption of this
strategy require?
What public sector-based incentives and regulations
would you recommend?
Do the current tools and platforms for collecting and
reporting out sustainability metrics fully support the
movement and its progress? What opportunities for
improvement exist?
Questions?
Please remember to complete the survey after
the webinar ends
Thank you!
36
