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
36
Embed
Exploring the State of Sustainability in Higher Education 2015
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
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