HOCKINGREEN 40% Carbon Footprint Reduction by 2020 2 Table of Contents Section Page Executive Summary------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4 HC Carbon Footprint------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7 Climate Action Plan Committee------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9 Mitigation Strategies----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Facilities and Energy------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10 Land Management Plan------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32 Future Mitigation Strategies----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33 Conclusion---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36 3 Executive Summary Hocking College signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) on April 19, 2007. Shortly thereafter, the College went through its first presidential change in forty years resulting in a new president, Dr. Ron Erickson. Dr. Erickson quickly made sustainability a priority at the College by creating the new Office of Sustainability, which has implemented sustainability goals for college operations, curriculum and co-curricular activities. This office is also charged with setting the College on a path to climate neutrality. The College is dedicated to meet the goals of the seven tangible actions of the ACUPCC. A green house gas inventory report was completed and submitted in January 2010. This report concluded that the College’s carbon footprint was 19,988 MT CO2e for the 2008-2009 academic year. The largest contributor to our footprint was student commuting, with purchased electricity being the second largest contributor. This report can be viewed at the ACUPCC web site under the reporting section. We have implemented two major initiatives in the academic year of 2009-2010 that will help us achieve our first step in the ultimate goal of climate neutrality. The College had an Energy Conservation Plan conducted by Aleron, Inc. in the fall of 2009 which yielded 11 Energy Conservation Measures (ECM) to consider. The implementation of these ECMs began in the spring of 2010 and will continue for the next several years. These projects will result in cost savings, improved work environments for Hocking College employees, aesthetic facility improvements, and reductions to our emissions. Secondly, we have begun to develop a comprehensive land management plan for our nearly 2,500 acres of forested campus property. This plan is being developed with the goal of seeking certification through the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. The land management plan will create a plethora of educational opportunities involving sustainability, develop a healthier ecosystem and maximize the potential to count our campus property as a carbon offset. In addition to reducing our carbon footprint, the combination of these two initiatives will have many positive impacts on our physical campus and campus community. Hocking College has set a goal of reducing our carbon footprint by 40% over the next ten (10) years. This percentage was chosen as realistic goal by calculating the potential reductions that each initiative has the ability to produce. We will be submitting annual progress reports charting our advancement of carbon reduction. Furthermore, we will be submitting additional long term plans to address the remaining 60% of our footprint as we near 2020. All of these plans will be discussed in more detail in this report. 4 Introduction Founded in 1968, Hocking College is nationally recognized as a premier technical college providing superior experiential education for a diverse group of learners from around Ohio, the United States, and throughout the world. Hocking College offers over 40 associate degree programs at three different campus locations (Nelsonville, New Lexington, and Logan). Students are engaged in “real world” learning and our award-winning programs have earned us a reputation for academic excellence both nationally and abroad. Hocking College is a public, open access technical college with a focus on training associate degree graduates. The North Central Association of Colleges accredits Hocking College. The total headcount at the College as of fall quarter 2009 is 6,341. There are several specific features of Hocking College that make our goals to achieve carbon neutrality realistic and fiscally feasible: 1. Community – Athens County, Ohio is home to a growing network of green businesses/organizations supported by Hocking College. This includes alternative energy companies like Third Sun and Dovetail Wind and Solar, the largest open-air farmers market in the state of Ohio, prominent non-profit providers such as Rural Action and ACEnet, educational partner Ohio University and federal and state government partners like Wayne National Forest and Ohio Department of Natural Resources. This network is woven throughout Athens County and Southeast Ohio with a culture that embraces sustainable living. 2. Logan Energy Institute – This educational facility hosts the only two-year college in Appalachian Ohio offering comprehensive training programs that address multiple types of advanced energy, including automotive hybrids, fuel cell technology and interdisciplinary courses in solar energy, wind turbines and hydro electrics. Consistent with the College’s hands-on learning philosophy, the Institute’s green campus permits demonstrations and experiments on a real-world scale. The presence of functioning alternative energy sources such as solar power, wind, and fuel cells throughout the Institute’s facilities places the future in students’ hands today. 3. School of Natural Resources – This is one of the largest academic units at the College supporting nearly 60 faculty, 1,100 students and 17 degree programs. The School of Natural Resources proudly graduates more students in Natural Resources and Conservation than any other associate degree level institution in the country going on 10 years in a row according to the Community College Weekly annual report. Faculty expertise and strong student involvement is at the core of the department in fields such as in forestry, wildlife management, land management, cartography and ecology. These fields of study are taught with a strong hands-on focus. Natural Resources students typically spend more than 60% of their time learning in the field or laboratory. 4. Campus Property – Hocking College owns nearly 2,500 acres of forested land throughout its holdings, with most of the property at the main campus in Nelsonville, Ohio (Figures 1 and 2). Our property includes miles of riparian zone along the Hocking River and natural gas wells used to heat our buildings. It also includes many acres of land scarred from the past of mineral and timber extraction that was so prominent in the cultural history of Southeast Ohio. Our land has many uses, but none more important than education. 5 Figure 1. Main campus of Hocking College. 6 Figure 2. Surrounding properties of the main campus. 7 Hocking College Carbon Footprint Greenhouse Gas Inventory A Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory provides the College with a specific set of data that contributes to the overall emissions that the college is responsible for each year. The inventory does this by calculating the carbon footprint of the campus, the total amount of greenhouse gases produced directly and indirectly, in terms of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) per year (MTCO2e/yr). The metric system is used in this process to be more compatible in the international community. The emissions are separated into three categories, referred to as scopes: Scope 1 emissions are direct, meaning that the college directly emits greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as a result of its activities. This includes 2 sources for Hocking College, natural gas for heating and transportation emissions from the campus fleet. Scope 2 emissions are indirect and solely include purchased electricity. The institution is responsible for the emissions created for every Kwh that it purchases and uses. Scope 3 emissions are also indirect and include all other campus activities that create greenhouse gases. They include faculty, staff and student commuting, employee air travel, study abroad travel, and waste management. The ACUPCC requires all of its participants to complete a GHG inventory within one year of signing and then update the data at least every other year. HC completed its first GHG inventory in 2009. The college will minimally submit its next GHG report in 2011 if not also submit a report for 2010 to fortify its GHG data set. Clean Air- Cool Planet GHG Inventory Tool The ACUPCC recommends using the Clean Air-Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator to establish the institution’s overall carbon footprint. The calculator, an elaborate excel spreadsheet, is used to collect and analyze GHG emissions data. This was the tool used by Hocking College to create its initial GHG report. Hocking College Carbon Footprint The initial GHG inventory submitted for Hocking College examined the fiscal year of 2008-2009. The summary of the three scopes the were as follows: Scope 1 Emissions = 519.2 MT CO2e Scope 2 Emissions = 6, 146.7 MT CO2e Scope 3 Emissions = 13, 322.5 MT CO2e TOTAL for FY 2009 = 19, 988.4 MT CO2e 8 It is easy to see how scope 3 dominates the carbon footprint for the institution. Figure 3 makes this point even more apparent: Figure 3 Furthermore, the majority (61%) of the scope 3 emissions consist of faculty, staff and student commuting with the student portion being the most significant. This dynamic is a result of the rural location of Hocking College despite the presence of 5 residential dormitories. This trend is quite common with other institutions of higher learning across the country. 9 Climate Action Plan Committee This diverse committee was created to represent the entire campus community and aid with the specific projects involved in this plan. The overall committee meets twice a year to conduct information sharing presentations. Sub-groups of the committee meet on a regular basis as they pertain to specific projects. Administration 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Dr. Ron Erickson, President Dr. Molly Weiland, Provost and Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs Dr. Myriah Short, Interim Vice President of Administrative Services Dr. Jerry Hutton, Dean, International Fuel Cells and Energy Ron Mash, Director, Building and Grounds Ken Bowald, Associate Dean, School of Natural Resources Derek Bobo, Chief Information Officer Ben Dalton, Chief Technology Officer Sonja Hill-Puckett, Director, Dining Services Dr. Bonnie Allen-Smith, Assessment Coordinator Joe Wakeman, Director of Sustainability Staff 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. Scott Hoobler, Maintenance Technician Cliff Dearth, Maintenance Technician Bob Seel, Maintenance Technician Will Alder, Fleet Technician Chuck Potts, Office Coordinator, Bookstore Faculty 17. Jim Downs, Instructor, Forest Management 18. Lynn Holtzman, Instructor, Wildlife Management 19. Dr. Mike Caudill, Professor, Geoenvironmental Science 20. Kathy Temple, Instructor, Natural Sciences 21. Dave Wakefield, Assistant Professor, Adventure Travel 22. Steve Roley, Instructor, Ecotourism Students and Alumni 23. Mike Whittemore, Student, Vice President Phi Theta Kappa 24. Spencer Hobson, Student, President Green Club 25. Molly Jo Stanley, Alumni 26. Kyle O'Keefe, Alumni Board of Trustees 27. Tonya Sherburne, Board Member 10 Mitigation Strategies Facilities and Energy Overview Energy is a major operating cost at Hocking College. Hocking College currently spends over $900,000 a year on Electric, $200,000 in Gas and $150,000 in Water and Sewer services. In addition, Hocking College also has gas wells that are producing approximately ½ of the main campuses gas. In this day of tightening budgets and shrinking resources Hocking College is looking at every possible opportunity to reduce energy consumption and at lowering the cost of operating as much as possible. Balancing the implementation costs of an Energy Conservation project with it long-term benefits presents a particular challenge, as a limited amount of resources are available. The College is most interested in any measure that has immediate payback yet desires to do even more as the future depends on making radical changes in the way we use energy. The long-term focus is on sustainability, which means to us, providing a campus that uses energy without jeopardizing the future generations and the earth as a whole. Our long-term plan is to work towards 100% sustainability. Over the years the College has made a substantial investment in new buildings, building renovations and upgrades that included energy conservation components. Energy expenditures have been steadily increasing since 2004. This is due to price increases and growth of the College. A practice or project that will save energy often creates an improvement in the occupant environment as well. Improvements in thermal efficiency will also reduce the infiltration of heat or cold into the space, and comfort usually increases as a result. On the Main Campus, most buildings have the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems operated by a computer over the campus network. The amount of control and levels of comfort varies with the age of the building and equipment in the facility. Energy and energy efficiency is nothing new to Hocking College. Currently a new building, “The Energy Institute” was constructed as a LEEDS platinum facility utilizing modern advancements that set the standard for the future at Hocking College. The building is a model of energy efficient techniques and designs as proven by its LEEDS Platinum classification. Some of the technologies being utilized are wind and solar power, geothermal heating and cooling, and day lighting, along with an energy efficient design and building envelope. Hocking College expects this building to meet Energy Star standards and we will be seeking the Energy Star Label for this facility. All Facility designs for new or remodeled spaces will consider energy savings and occupant comfort as primary design criteria. Currently many opportunities do exist to reduce energy consumption and include; retrocommissioning of existing buildings mechanical systems; heating and cooling plant efficiency improvements; implementing high-efficiency lighting upgrades throughout the campus; operation and maintenance improvements associated with the preventative maintenance program and the upgrading of building HVAC and lighting control systems. Other opportunities also exist in many areas to continue to reduce campus energy consumption; including improvements to each Hocking College owned natural gas well. Existing meters on the wells could be upgraded 11 providing more reliable data. As new technology brings on new opportunities their impact on campus will be explored. The needed capital dollars necessary to make the efficiency improvement far exceeded the budget dollars available. Hocking College may be using alternative methods of financing including the possible use of Ohio House Bill 7, ORC 3345:61-66 as a financial tool to implement some Energy Conservation Measures. Energy Consumption Hocking College has a unique makeup of buildings and energy sources (figure 1). Its rural Southeastern Ohio location has provided the College with the advantage of drilling 11 natural gas wells on campus. The main campus is comprised of a collection of buildings with various uses and many deviate for the traditional classroom environment. A student recreation center with a swimming pool and a gymnasium is located on the campus. A number traditional 1, 2 and 3 story classroom buildings, a horse barn with furrier services, a classroom/lab building with gas fired kilns, a daycare center as well as a book store/warehouse building, and buildings of other varying uses. Because of this, Hocking College’s energy use is not comparable to many other campuses around the State. In addition to the varying building uses, and to complicate things even more, the campus has two operating gas wells. These wells have been in use for a number of years and one of the two is still producing gas in a reliable fashion. Supplementing this production source, natural gas is purchased from two outside suppliers. These different gas sources are connected into a main campus header that supplies gas to the buildings on the campus. Some meters are located on campus and over the last few years Hocking College has attempted to keep records of building-bybuilding use. It was discovered in 2006 that there were numerous leaks. In 2007 some repairs were made to fix the leaks and a reduction on gas purchases was noticed. Records have been kept since 2007 on gas supplied to the different buildings. Through analysis of this data via this study and observation by the staff, it has been determined that the meters are not accurate. Supporting this determination an independent evaluation of the meters was performed by UTI in 2008. They also determined that the meters may not be accurate and some repairs are necessary. The electrical consumption data is much more accurate as the buildings have meters supplied by AEP. Only the last three years of data was available for the study. One on the goals of Hocking College is to improve the recordkeeping and the benchmarking of existing facilities. Data is being tracked internally now and via Portfolio Manager the EPA online tool recommended by House Bill Legislation and the Ohio Board of Regents. The College is working with a company at this time to improve the metering and to possibly restore some of the gas production capability of the existing wells. We expect that the future will bring more consistency in the data collected process. 12 With all of the exceptions we did establish a baseline for evaluating our current facilities and consumption. In this we also had to be creative. Only two years of semi-reliable data was available for gas consumption analysis and 3 years of electrical consumption data. These baselines are only an approximation of consumption by building. As mentioned above the analysis of building-by-building data is not as accurate as we would like, and may be adjusted in the future as new more reliable data is gathered. A Summary of the Facilities Studied Name Square Footage North Dorm* Downhour Dorm* Davidson Hall Light/Oakley Hall Shaw Building Natural Resources Building Public Safety Building Daycare Building Recreation Center Hocking Heights Dorm Petro-Auto Building Perry County Building** Total 43,344 48,372 39,483 120,390 14,952 29,905 15,824 3,400 46,791 42,638 16,200 20,971 452,298 *Note: New to campus this year **Note: Only building not on site with the other buildings Building Square Footage North Dorm Downhour Dorm 16,200 42,638 20,971 43,344 Davidson Hall 48,372 Light/Oakley Hall 39,483 46,791 Shaw Building Natural Resources Building Public Safety Building 3,400 Daycare Building 15,824 Recreation Center 120,390 29,905 14,952 Hocking Heights Dorm Petro-Auto Building Perry County Building 13 kBtu's Used by Building 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 - Year 1 KBTU's Per Sq. Ft. Year 2 KBTU's Per Sq. Ft. KBTU's by Fuel Type 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 Gas 06-07 40.0 Gas 07-08 20.0 - Elec 06-07 Elec 07-08 Establishing the 2004 Benchmark All of the available utility data was entered into Portfolio Manager at energystar.gov. Portfolio Manager is the recommended energy tracking and monitoring program approved by the Board of Regents and the State of Ohio. This program is run by the EPA and is designed to track energy efficiency across a portfolio of buildings. The program takes into account data such as square footage, number of computers, hours of operations. The historical utility data for gas and electric was entered and tracked. From this data a baseline year is established and changes to the buildings can be monitored and tracked as to the impact made by changes. The program was also 14 used to establish the carbon footprint of each building and is expressed in tons of Metric tons of CO2. It should be noted that the data available for this study did not go back to 2004 and the sources for building by building historical energy usage is not accurate due to a unique set of circumstances. As previously mentioned it has been determined that gas metering is not accurate. The electrical consumption data is much more accurate as the buildings have meters supplied by AEP. The last three years of data was evaluated for the study. With all of the exceptions mentioned above we did establish a baseline for evaluating our current facilities and consumption. Only two years of semi-reliable data was available for gas consumption analysis and 3 years of electrical consumption data. The baselines using this data are only an approximation of consumption by building and may be adjusted in the future as new more reliable data is gathered. With that consideration and the fact that the data did not account for total campus consumption, other methods had to be considered for evaluation of ECMs. To recap, when the building-by-building energy use was evaluated and compared to the total campus wide consumption as a whole, some energy is “lost” or “missing”. This is either from inaccurate metering or pipeline losses of gas. However, as a member of the American College & Universities Presidents’ Climate Commitment, Hocking College is developing a climate action plan with the ultimate goal of making the campus carbon neutral. With the technical difficulties listed above kept in mind, a baseline for the campus and the ECM calculations was established as 110 kBtu per square foot for this campus. We looked at the overall total energy used by categories of Electricity and Gas. When analyzed as a whole and then divided by total campus square footage we arrived at the 110 kBtu baseline on average per building. Obviously some buildings are higher and some are lower and this ration can somewhat be rationalized by the metered data and building use and type. Our reduction goal for 2015 will therefore be 22 kBtus per square foot with a target of 88 kBtus per square foot per building on average per year or lower thereafter. Current Building Systems The College is made up of a collection of 37 buildings ranging from classroom buildings to small century old houses, on the main campus, and scattered in and around the town of Nelsonville. The College also has a Perry Campus building in New Lexington, and the Energy Institute building located in Logan. This study has focused on the Main Campus buildings with more than 10,000 FT2 in order to conform to the House Bill legislation. Buildings with less than 10,000 FT2 are not part of this plan at this time. Many of these buildings on the main campus are 1 to 3 story block wall classroom buildings that are typical of higher education buildings built in the 1970’s and 1980’s. This unique collection of buildings is comprised mostly of classroom, meeting, offices, exhibit, historic, and specialty use spaces. The College, including on and off campus buildings represents a total of 460,600+ Ft². 15 College Lighting Systems and Lighting Control The College lighting system mainly consists of magnetic/electro-magnetic ballasts and T12 fluorescent lamps. Some electronic ballasts and T8 fluorescent lamps are also on site but in small numbers and scattered around in different buildings. The changes from T12 to T8 have taken place mainly as spaces are renovated or re-lamping is necessary due to maintenance issues. In addition, some incandescent lamps remain in various locations. Some specialty lighting is present in certain areas as required. In high bay, outdoor and gymnasium areas there remains a mixture of HID fixtures of various wattages. Many of the classrooms have occupancy sensors for lighting control and many areas are still on room light switches, outdoor lighting is on photo sensors. None of the buildings studied have a centralized lighting control system. College HVAC Systems The College HVAC systems are not interconnected and each facility has its own heating/cooling plant or forced air system, geothermal system, radiant system or other form of Heating and Cooling. Most have centralized gas fired hot water boilers for heating and chillers to supply chilled water for cooling. Centralized air handlers condition the air and the air is distributed via ductwork to the various zones terminal devices such as ceiling diffusers and variable air volume boxes, with and without reheat capability. John Light and Oakley Hal also have hot water radiant heating on the perimeter as typical for the era. The systems are of varying age, and designs. College Automated Control System The main operating system on the campus is a Building Automation System as manufactured by Automated Logic Corporation. 75% of the HVAC equipment on the main campus is on previous generation automation software and systems with varying levels of controllability. Most of the HVAC units on the automation system are controlled with simply a start/stop capability and scheduling, while others have full DDC control with energy efficient control strategies. The areas not on the Automated Logic control system are either on programmable thermostats or older pneumatic controls and these controls do not have the full capability of the newer systems. Very little actual classroom-by-classroom control is on the campus; most classroom and office areas are grouped together by air handling units. Upgrading to room-by-room control is a big part of controlling energy costs and improving occupant comfort. The College plans on making changes to classroom-by-classroom control as spaces are renovated. Perry Campus Building This building is not on the Main Campus and the size is 20,971 Sq. Ft. The Perry Campus building is a newer two story building with a mix of packaged HVAC units and forced air heating and cooling. The lighting systems are older T-12 technology. The analysis showed that this building’s HVAC systems are operating efficiently for their design type and square footage. The College is in the process of upgrading the older T-12 fluorescent lights with high efficiency T-8 lighting technology. Approximately 50% of the building has been converted. This is being done with operating and maintenance dollars. 16 Summary of Potential Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) Total of All ECM’s Above ECM Description No. 1. T8 Fluorescent 2. Exit Sign Lighting 3. Day lighting 4. Occupancy Sensors 5. Parking Lot Lighting 6. Outdoor Lighting 7. High Bay Lighting 8. BAS Upgrade 9. Variable Speed 10. Boiler Upgrades 11. Solar Water Heating Total Cost $604,800 $5,000 $3,750 $22,300 $9,000 $3,750 $33,000 $400,000 $45,000 $130,000 $450,000 Total $1,706,600 $238,516 Energy Savings/yr $115,698 $5,980 $1,660 $9,446 $1,980 $1,660 $19,315 $40,000 $34,000 $8,157 $18,000 Reduction kBtu/ft2/yr 9.80 0.50 0.15 0.80 0.05 0.15 1.63 3.39 2.94 2.40 0.61 Avoided kgCO2/yr 910,344 47,000 13,400 74,861 4,768 13,400 151,981 314,729 80,000 223,000 277,425 22.42 2,110,908 Estimated Payback/yrs 5.25 1 2.25 2.4 4.5 2.25 4.9 10 1.3 16 25 7.15 Based on energy savings only, see individual ECMs for estimated maintenance savings. Summary of Potential Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) Inherent in this type of facility, there is extreme diversity in the use of spaces at various times of the year. The most energy efficient operation would be to have individual room-by-room control of the HVAC and lighting. This can be completed with today’s technology without compromising the environment for the students or staff. When an individual space can be shut down when unoccupied it allows the main system providing the conditioning to the space to throttle back, saving energy at the unit, which allows the plant to throttle back, saving energy at the boilers or AC system. The recommendations will all be geared towards providing this overall capability. ECM will quantify the following recommendations as accurately as possible in “today’s dollars” for a simple payback. Recognize that most of the individual measures have an extreme interaction on the others. ECM #1 Fluorescent Lighting Upgrades Description: Upgrade existing 48”, 96” and U-bend fluorescents with T-12 diameter bulbs and magnetic ballasts to high-efficiency T-8 diameter equivalents. Most of these upgrades can be done within the existing fixture housing using a retrofit socket and ballast kit. The T-8 technology uses 33% less power for the same light levels and improved lamp life. Some pockets of T-8 lighting already exist in some of the classroom buildings, but much of the lighting remains T-12 fluorescent. During the upgrade, give consideration to converting U-bend fixtures (usually 24” x 24”) to straight tube 24” x 48” T-8 fixtures where possible because the straight tubes are more efficient and straight bulbs are much less expensive for the same light output. Example: A four-lamp 24” x 48” troffer fixture using T-12 tubes will consume 180 Watts (4 tubes at 40 Watts each, plus magnetic ballast at 20 Watts), and the T-8 equivalent will consume 122 Watts 17 (4 tubes at 28 Watts each, plus electronic ballast at 10 Watts). In a classroom space one fixture serves about 50 square feet, costs about $105 to upgrade, and saves 58 Watts (180W before minus 122W after). Based on classroom use of 75 hours per week, or 3,900 hours per year, at the current average rate of $0.0888/kWh the savings per fixture are 226 kWh/year or $20/year, and the breakeven period is 5.25 years. Based on total classroom area of 360,000 square feet and assuming 80% of these spaces are candidates for this upgrade, produces an estimate of upgrading 5,760 fixtures, at a total cost of $604,800 and producing a reduction of 1,302,912 kWh per year, which saves $115,698 per year at today’s rates. Since one kWh is 3.4 kBtu, this ECM represents a campus-wide savings potential of 4,429,900 kBtu per year, a contribution to the total savings over the 452,000 square foot campus (total classes and dorms) of 9.80 kBtu per square foot per year. The net reduction in atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 910,344 kg/year (based on Energy Star estimate of 205.5 kg of CO2 equivalent per million Btu). Breakeven for this project is 5.22 years. ECM#1 T-8 Fluorescent Upgrades Cost $604,800 Reduction 9.80 kBtu/SqFt Energy Savings Avoided $115,698 per year 910,344 kg CO2 per year ECM #2 Exit Sign Upgrades Description: Upgrade existing exit signs having incandescent bulbs to LED retrofit kits. The upgraded fixture will use less than 1/20th of the power and increase the expected maintenance interval from under 1,500 hours to over 35,000 hours. The exact number of fixtures that would benefit from this upgrade has not been determined. Despite the low power savings per fixture, and small impact to the overall campus consumption, the continuous operation of exit signs makes this ECM viable due to its short payback for each unit upgraded. Example: An incandescent exit sign consumes 80 Watts (two 40 Watt bulbs) while the LED conversion kit uses only 3 watts. An upgrade costs about $50 per fixture, and saves 77 Watts (80W before minus 3W after). Based on 24/7 operation or 8,760 hours per year, at the current average rate of $0.0888/kWh the savings per fixture are 674 kWh/year or $59/year, and the breakeven period is under 1 year. The newest buildings (dorms, student center) should already have low power exit signs, and in the remaining 250,000 square feet of classroom space, based on observing about 6 signs per exit door and based on one exit per 10,000 square feet, with 2/3 needing upgraded, yields 25 exit doors and 150 signs of which 100 need upgraded. Upgrading 100 exit signs at a total cost of $5,000 produces a reduction of 67,400 kWh per year, which saves $5,980 per year at today’s rates. This ECM represents a campus-wide savings potential of 229,000 kBtu per year, a contribution to the total savings over the campus of 0.5 kBtu per square foot per year. The net reduction in atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 47,000 kg/year. ECM#2 Exit Signs Cost $5,000 Reduction 0.50 kBtu/SqFt Energy Savings Avoided $5,980 per year 47,000 kg CO2 per year 18 ECM #3 Daylight Sensing Controls Description: In those spaces where windows or skylights often allow significant sunlight to be available, such as the cafeteria, lobby and gathering areas, and some hallways, add daylight sensors to keep the powered lights off when the sunlight entering the space from outdoors is sufficiently bright. The Natural Resources student lounge area, for example, has fluorescent cans and troffers of about 800 Watts total that likely would be off an additional 30 hours per week if daylight sensing were used. This saves 1248 kWh per year, which corresponds to 0.12 kBtu per square foot per year saved for this building, with a breakeven of less than 3 years. Example: Natural Resources student lounge area has fluorescent cans and troffers, totaling about 800 Watts. Turning off these lights when sensed daylight is sufficient would likely gain about 30 hours of additional off time per week for the lights, saving 1248 kWh per year or $110 per year at today’s rates, at an installed cost of $250 for a breakeven of 2.3 years. Based on this example and estimating that there are 15 locations throughout the campus that would benefit similarly yields an overall savings of 18,700 kWh per year or $1,660 per year, from a total upgrade cost of $3,750. This ECM represents a campus-wide savings potential of 63,500 kBtu per year, a contribution to the total savings over the campus of 0.15 kBtu per square foot per year. The net reduction in atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 13,400 kg/year. ECM#3 Daylighting Cost $3,750 Reduction 0.15 kBtu/SqFt Energy Savings Avoided $1,660 per year 13,400 kg CO2 per year ECM #4 Occupancy Sensing Controls Description: Add occupancy controls to appropriate light fixture groupings to keep lights off and HVAC in setback mode whenever possible. Examples of the types of areas that would benefit most from these controls: Classrooms. Occupancy sensors with a dropout delay can turn off the lights and relax the heating or cooling setpoint when occupants have not been sensed in a given classroom within the past few minutes. The savings is dependent upon how effective the existing habits of the room occupants are at keeping unneeded lights turned off, but gaining even 2 hours each day would produce a quick payback for the effort. Restrooms. Occupancy sensors with a dropout delay can turn off the lights and when visitors have not been sensed in a restroom within the past few minutes. The savings is dependent upon traffic levels and how effective the existing habits of the room occupants are at keeping unneeded lights turned off, but gaining 3 hours of savings each day is not unreasonable, and the payback is therefore short. Ventilation will need to continue even with the lights off, however exhaust fans only need to run during the scheduled open hours of the building. Service Areas (Janitor Closets, Mechanical Rooms, Storage Spaces). Occupancy sensors with a dropout delay can turn off the lights when occupants have not been sensed in these areas. Some lights would need to be operated continuously and independent of the sensor to permit safe egress. Savings in these spaces can be many hours each day due to their non-public nature. 19 Example: Classroom: Adding classroom motion sensors would gain 2 hours per day, or 750 hours per year, from operating 2500 Watts of light at installed cost of $400. Savings are 1,875 kWh per year, or $166 per year, for a 2.4 year breakeven. Restroom: Adding a wall-mounted occupancy sensor in a restroom would cost $150 to install, and would save 3 hours per day, or 1000 hours per year, from operating 600 Watts of light. This room would save 600 kWh per year, or $53 per year, for a 3 year breakeven. Service Areas: Adding a ceiling-mounted motion sensor in a mechanical room would cost about $200 to install and save about 5 hours per day, or 1500 hours per year, from operating 900 Watts of lights, for a total savings of 1350 kWh per year, or $119 per year, for a 1.6 year breakeven. Based on these individual examples and estimating that there are 40 classrooms, 26 restrooms, and 12 service areas throughout the campus that would benefit similarly, yields an overall savings of 106,800 kWh per year or $9,446 per year, from a total upgrade cost of $22,300. This ECM represents a campus-wide savings potential of 363,120 kBtu per year, a contribution to the total savings over the campus of 0.80 kBtu per square foot per year. The net reduction in atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 74,681 kg/year. Additional savings from setting back the HVAC to when classrooms are unoccupied would be achieved but are not included in these calculations. It is estimated these savings in heating, air conditioning and ventilation costs would be roughly similar to the lighting savings. ECM#4 Occupancy Sensing Cost $22,300 Reduction 0.80 kBtu/SqFt Energy Savings Avoided $9,446 per year 74,681 kg CO2 per year ECM #5 Parking Lot Lighting Description: Convert the parking lot HID lighting to induction lighting to greatly reduce energy consumption and maintenance requirements. The parking lot lights are operated many hours each week (estimated at 35 hours per week, varies by sun schedule) for safety and convenience, and replacing the bulbs and ballasts in the highest fixtures now requires a boom truck which is expensive to arrange. New fixtures are now available with equivalent brightness at nearly half the wattage of HID, and with very long life which over its life produces maintenance savings exceeding the energy savings. Additionally, the prominent use of advanced lighting technologies demonstrates a significant commitment by Hocking College to energy conservation and the high visibility to campus visitors can be exploited for marketing purposes. As a part of the project, the tallest parking lot poles should be eliminated and replaced by several, shorter poles as required, to ease future maintenance by college staff. Converting the estimated 30 parking lot fixtures to Induction lamp technology would cost about $9,000 and reduce the consumption of each by 125 Watts, for total savings of 6,825 kWh/yr or 23,205 kBtu/yr, which at today’s rates is about $606/yr with the net effect over the campus footprint of 0.05 kBtu per square foot per year. The energy breakeven is 14.8 years and maintenance costs avoided are estimated as the cost of 4 replacement HID bulbs ($30 each), 2 ballasts ($90 each), and labor (4 at $100) totaling $700/fixture over 15 years, or $46/fixture/yr, for a 20 total of $1,380/yr bringing the energy+maintenance breakeven down to 5.3 years. The net reduction in atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 4,768 kg/yr. ECM#5 Induction Parking Lot Lighting Cost $ 9,000 Reduction 0.05 kBtu/SqFt Savings Maint. Savings Avoided $ 606 per year $1,380 per year 4,768 kg CO2 per year ECM #6 Outdoor and Pole-top Lighting Description: Convert the walkway, wall-pack and area pole-top lighting from HID to LED lighting to greatly reduce energy consumption and maintenance requirements. The area lights are operated many hours each week (estimated at 35 hours per week, varies by fixture location and sun schedule) for safety and convenience, and burnt-out bulbs are very inconvenient and can create a safety priority, but pole-top and wall-pack LED fixtures are now available with equivalent brightness at well under half the wattage of HID, and with very long life. Additionally, the prominent use of LED lighting technology demonstrates a significant commitment by Hocking College to energy conservation and its high visibility to campus visitors can be exploited for marketing purposes. Example: An LED Wall-Pack fixture costs $400 to purchase plus $100 to install, and reduces the 150 Watt HID usage to 48 Watts, with seven year warranty and 70,000 rated life. Operating 35 hours per week, or 1,820 hours per year, at the 102 Watt reduction saves 185 kWh and $16.50 per year per fixture. The long LED life eliminates replacing the bulb every 2 years and the ballast every four years, so within the next 10 years the savings are 5 bulbs ($20), 2 ballasts ($70), and $75 labor (5 times), for maintenance savings of another $61 per year. Combined, the $77 saved per year results in a 5.2 year breakeven. Example: LED Acorn Pole-top Retrofit fixture costs $1,000 to purchase plus $100 to install, and reduces the 150 Watt HID usage to 48 Watts, so the per-fixture savings are exactly as stated for the Wall-pack lights above. The breakeven is up to 11.4 years due to higher initial cost. Estimating that there are 30 wall-packs and 40 pole-top fixtures to be converted yields an overall savings of 5,550 kWh per year or $492 per year in electric cost, from a total upgrade cost of $15,000. Additional replacement bulb and ballast costs avoided are another $750 per year. This ECM represents a campus-wide savings potential of 18,800 kBtu per year, a contribution to the total savings over the campus of 0.04 kBtu per square foot per year. The net reduction in atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 1,140 kg/year. ECM#6 Outdoor Lighting Cost $3,750 Reduction 0.15 kBtu/SqFt Energy Savings Avoided $1,660 per year 13,400 kg CO2 per year 21 ECM #7 Gymnasiums and Recreation Center Lighting Description: Convert the high-bay Metal Halide lighting to a mix of LED and Fluorescent lighting to greatly reduce energy consumption and maintenance requirements. At present, the High-Intensity Discharge (HID) Metal Halide lighting is energized continuously (168 hours per week) to allow use of the gyms, track, pool and other activity areas, and because HID lights have long warm-up times. This causes many hours of operation with no occupants. Converting to high-intensity fluorescent lighting as the source for activity lighting, and using LED lighting for continuous, safe passage and casual access lighting, would allow gaining as much lights-off time as possible each week to maximize energy reductions without creating safety, security or warm-up delay concerns. The two light levels are achieved by installing long-life, low-power LED lighting to supply 10 to 15% of the full “activity” light levels and operate these lights during the hours the building is occupied. This reduces the power consumption when each space is unoccupied to 5% of the former consumption while still allowing students and staff to pass through the spaces safely. For activity in the space, the higher light levels are created by high-brightness fluorescent arrays that have no re-strike delay and use one third less power than Metal Halide lighting and operate only while each space is being used. This saves significant energy costs and will reduce maintenance intervals as well. Using the assumption that the existing layout is based on 400W per fixture serving 300 square feet of space, and replacing each HID fixture with a 150W fluorescent fixture, plus adding a 58W LED fixture at every fourth location, results in full-brightness power savings averaging 235W per fixture location. If full brightness is needed 1/3 of the time (saving 250W for 56 hours per week), and the lower power LED alone is needed the other 2/3 (saving 342W for 112 hr/wk), the power savings per week per fixture is 52.3 kWh/wk or 2,719 kWh/yr per fixture. Assuming 1/2 of the Student Center’s total 46,000 square feet is upgradable high-bay this results in an installed cost of $33,000 and savings in about 80 fixtures of 217,520 kWh per year or 739,568 kBtu/yr. This is a savings of about 1.63 kBtu per square foot per year when spread across the College as a whole. The consumption cost savings at present rates is $19,315/yr for a breakeven of 1.71 years. The net reduction in atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 151,981 kg/year. ECM#7 High Bay Lighting Cost $33,000 Reduction 1.63 kBtu/SqFt Energy Savings Avoided $19,315 per year 151,981 kg CO2 per year ECM #8 Update and Expand Digital Control of HVAC Description: a. Expand Controls to All Central HVAC Equipment. Existing Automated Logic Controls are controlling the air handlers, boilers and chillers in most of the classroom buildings, and all central HVAC equipment not presently controlled by this system (particularly Natural Resources, Holl Lab and the two new dorms) should be added to gain the energy efficiency and system management benefits the system allows. Also, the existing controls from 1998 should be upgraded to the latest software revisions to gain the newest features, and the existing sequences should be expanded to maximize energy savings by incorporating the latest energy reduction techniques. 22 BUDGET $400k $40k/yr savings based on installed cost $1.75/sqft x 250,000?? sq ft of classrooms (not dorms, incl zoning) b. Sequence Improvements. In our experience, control improvements such as those listed below generally save 3 to 20% of total energy consumption, with under a 3-year payback. The savings are affected by how well each control is functioning now, and how aggressively the new sequences can operate based on original mechanical equipment limitations. Upgrading the central equipment will easily achieve 5% savings an additional 10% savings can be reached by extending the zoning to all reasonable rooms and offices. Reaching a 15% savings by aggressively pursuing optimum energy control strategies for all HVAC should take the savings as high as 60kBtu per square Foot per year. 1) Air handlers in every building are generally equipped with outside air economizers for free cooling in winter, but it was observed that some units are in need of physical repair, operational checkout or improved programming. This would improve energy performance. 2) The air handler supply air temperatures and volumes are controlled by the digital systems, but the supply temperature should be reset in sequence with the needs of all equipment to which air is being supplied. An aggressive reset schedule would save significant amounts of energy, in fan horsepower and in supplied heat content. 3) The heating and cooling supply water temperatures are mostly controlled by the digital systems, but the water temperatures should be reset in sequence with the needs of all equipment to which water is being supplied. An aggressive reset schedule would save significant amounts of energy, especially if water temperatures were coordinated with supply air temperature set-points. c. Expansion to All Rooms and Zones. Existing Automated Logic Controls are controlling the air handlers in most of the classroom buildings, but the zone controls that supply each room are digitally controlled and remotely accessible only in Davidson, Public Safety and the Student Center. Expanding the controls to include control of each room for the other zoned buildings (Oakley, Light and Natural Resources) would implement coordination of zone requirements with supplied air and water, allow remote diagnostics and setpoint management by college staff, and improve comfort while reducing energy consumption. In the buildings not zoned suitably (particularly Holl Lab, or the three dorms) time of day schedules and temperature monitoring will allow adjustments to be made to use less energy in these systems. Breakeven is 10 years ECM#8 Building Automation Improvements Cost $400,000 Energy Savings Reduction 3.39 kBtu/SqFt Avoided $40,000 per year 275,000 kg CO2 per year ECM #9 Variable Speed Conversions Description: Many of the air handlers in the zoned buildings are supplying a varying flow of air to the rooms with the fan volume modulated by a variable frequency drive system and associated sensors, under the control of the digital control system. The remaining air handlers should be converted from vortex damper inlet vanes that restrict airflow, to variable frequency drives, to reduce energy use; for example the Light 3rd floor air handler. 23 Example: Davidson AHU-1, -2 and -3 include two 30 HP and one 20 HP fans. Converting a typical 20 HP fan to variable frequency drives costs about $4,500, and a 30 HP conversion costs $5,000. Going from inlet vanes to variable speed in a VAV application reduces consumption by 50%. If these fans operate 20 hours per day, 5 days per week all year, the energy savings for converting a 20 HP fan is: (20 HP x 0.746 kW/HP x 100 hr/wk x 52 wk/yr x 50%) = 38,792 kWh/yr which is $3,440/yr at today’s average rate of $0.0888/kWh. Likewise a 30HP conversion saves 58,188 kWh/yr and $5,160/yr. The total for this building (two 30 HP and one 20 HP fans) costs $14,500 to convert, saves 156,100 kWh/yr or $13,760/yr and has under a two year breakeven, and saves 32,000 kgCO2/yr It is expected that as many as 8 fans across campus, including the 3 in Davidson in the above example, are similar candidates for variable speed conversion, and have similar sizes, costs and operating hours. Based on a total project cost and savings of 2.5 times the Davidson examples, we can expect a variable speed project cost of $4,000 to save 390,000 kWh/yr (1,326,000 kBtu/yr) and $34,000/yr and 80,000 kgCO2/yr. Contribution to total campus consumption is 1,326,000 kBtu/yr, which nets 2.94 kBtu/sqft/yr impact. ECM#9 Variable Speed HVAC (8 fans) Cost $45,000 Reduction 2.94 kBtu/SqFt Energy Savings Avoided $34,000 per year 80,000 kg CO2 per year ECM #10 Upgrade Boilers to High-Efficiency Modulating Types Description: Replace one of each pair of Boilers. The usual design practice at the college has been to install natural gas heating hot water boilers in pairs, one operated as the “Lead Boiler” and one as “Lag Boiler”. The boiler order may rotate under software control. The existing boilers are primarily Weil-McLain atmospheric-burner boilers of various sizes, rated for 80% combustion efficiency with cycling full-fire burners. This situation is found in Shaw, Davidson, Public Safety, Oakley/Light, and Natural Resources. The boilers are typically sized such that the heating needs of the building during worst case weather (designed to 0 F. in Ohio) is met by operating the “Lead” boiler, and the second “Lag” boiler is primarily a ready-to-use backup to assure heat is always available even if the “Lead” boiler fails to fire. New boiler technology is available to improve energy consumption significantly. The improvement comes in two ways: the new burners deliver more energy to the water from a given quantity of natural gas, and the new burners can keep this efficiency while modulating down to lower heat output levels. The new boiler combustion efficiency is rated 96% instead of 80%, which means that even at high fire there is a 20% lower gas consumption for the same hot water production. At lower firing rates, typical of most hours of the year, the old boiler efficiency was likely well lower than 70% due to losses of cycling the burner rather than matching the firing rate to the need. A seasonal savings of 30% lower natural gas for the same delivered heat value is a reasonable estimate in this application. To reduce installation costs and therefore shorten the break-even period for this ECM, we propose that only one boiler of each pair be upgraded at this time to the higher efficiency model, and that the order of operation be fixed so that the new boiler operates as the “Lead” boiler, with 24 the older boiler left in place as the backup “Lag” boiler. This choice gains the energy benefits of the new technology nearly all of the time, without adding the cost of standby equipment to the project cost. The old boilers are of good quality and have been kept in decent condition and therefore could operate for many more years in this manner. Replacing the five boilers would cost $130,00. The annual gas consumption total for the five buildings totaled 42,893 CCF in 2007 and 29,622 CCF in 2008. The average is 36,257 CCF/yr, which is 3,625,700 kBtu/yr. The heating boilers are the dominant gas consumers in these buildings and an improvement of 30% is a reduction in total gas consumption would amount to 10,877 CCF/yr or 1,087,000 kBtu/yr reduction, which at a market rate of $0.75/CCF represents a cost savings of $8,157/yr and 223,000 kgCO2/yr. This puts the breakeven point at 16 years. Spread across the whole campus footprint this represents a reduction of 2.40 kBtu/sqft/yr. ECM#10 Boiler Upgrades Cost $130,000 Reduction 2.40 kBtu/SqFt Energy Savings Avoided $8,157 per year 223,000 kg CO2 per year ECM #11 Add Solar Hot Water to The Student Center Description: The two boilers in this building are high performance models with stepped burners and so are very efficient when firing. However, the boilers are used for both building heating in winter and domestic hot water generation year-round. The heating water loop is heated year round to supply heat exchangers (convertors) for heating the pool, supplying the showers, and for restroom sinks. The roof over the swimming pool would seem ideally suited by orientation and location to add solar water heating panels for domestic hot water production in the summer, with a goal of eliminating the firing of the boilers for several months each year. The solar hot water system could be piped and valved as an automatic substitute for the boiler water now supplied to just the domestic hot water convertors located adjacent to the pool, preserving the existing isolation between the closed, treated hot water loops and the pool or potable water streams. The required high temperature water to replace boiler water can be supplied by vacuum-tube solar water heating technology, especially during summer sun, and the system can be designed so that solar heat gained during the rest of the year can be used to supply a fraction of the heating-side requirement. Pool heating can be controlled to store all midday solar heat collected and avoid adding boiler-generated heat at other times. The solar heat produced is predictable for a given design over the year, and all solar heat can be used and would have otherwise been created by burning natural gas, so the solar production matches the gas energy saved. In addition, since the college has a stake in promoting solar technologies, there is significant value in having the Student Center serve as a real-world example of cost-effective energy reduction through the application of solar technology. Installing enough solar heating panels to supply the entire daily domestic hot water needs for the Recreation Center for the three summer months of 5,000,000 Btu/day would require panels that cover about 7,500 square feet of the roof, and cost roughly $450,000 to have installed, but would offset all natural gas presently used in the summer months in this building, or about 4,500 CCF/yr, and would also offset similar gas consumption the other months of the year for total costs 25 avoided of $18,000/yr with energy breakeven in 25 years. The gas reduction of 13,500 CCF/yr is equal to 1,350,000 kBtu/yr and saves 277,425 kgCO2/yr. Applied across the campus this is 0.61 kBtu/sqft/yr. Alternately, the installation could be scaled and phased in over time, and students could perform part of the installation as a class experience, although these options are not considered beyond this mention. ECM#11 Solar Water Heating Cost $450,000 Reduction 0.61 kBtu/SqFt Energy Savings Avoided $18,000 per year 277,425 kg CO2 per year Other Potential Energy Conservation Measures The following ECM’s while un-quantified in terms of KBtu reduction all can have a positive effect on overall reductions. They should be considered in part or in whole when evaluating the operations and maintenance practices (O &M), facility repairs, remodeling and cleaning practices. By implementing as many of these as possible the campus will be able to exceed the mandated energy reduction goals. Many ECMs have interaction with others and some aspects of these ECM’s may also be a part of an above-mentioned ECM. For example ECM #9 (Optimizing DayLighting) is part of ECM #2B (Day-Lighting Controls for LeFevre). ECM #16 (Optimize Equipment Start-Up Time and Sequencing) is included partly in ECM 3# (Building Automation and Controls) ECM #12 Maintenance Policies and Practices Description: Identify upgrades that could be performed during routine maintenance and repairs that will save energy, and intentionally make energy efficiency a consideration for such repairs or replacement parts. For example, by mandating that future fluorescent parts orders will only be for T-8 tubes and electronic ballasts, and by stocking fixture upgrade kits to facilitate conversions at the time of re-lamping by maintenance personnel, will gradually result in achieving some of the energy savings being targeted by a comprehensive project. Other, similar maintenance practices and procedures can be adopted to pay specific attention to energy and avoid inefficient “business as usual” repair parts procurement. Such policies are most effective and least intrusive if replacements and stocking are planned in advance rather than waiting until repairs are needed and time is tight. Consider specifying that specific spares be provided under upgrade contracts to benefit from quantity pricing and to have spares that match installed models exactly. ECM #13: Optimizing Day-Lighting Description: There are many simple strategies that can enhance day lighting and reduce the need for electric lights. Good quality daylight is always welcome, but remember that the electric lights must be dimmed or shut-off in order for day lighting to save energy. The most important strategy for using daylight is to optimize the lighting quality in the space you want to daylight. Good lighting quality requires light-colored surfaces and keeping light fixtures, windows, walls and other lightdistributing surfaces clean. The next most important general day-lighting strategy is to control the light coming though windows. There are many ways to control window daylight and the solar heat that comes with it: 26 1. Interior and/or exterior window blinds can prevent glare and channel light toward the ceiling where it diffuses comfortably into the room. Larger spaces may use automatic controls to lift and lower the blinds and/or to adjust their vanes. 2. Window films, which are installed on the inside of single- and double-pane glass, can block solar heat while admitting visible light. 3. New varieties of solar heat-blocking roller shades open and close from the window’s bottom rather than its top. This allows diffused daylight to enter through the window’s top while solar heat is blocked at the bottom, which is especially helpful for buildings with overhangs that already block direct sun through the window’s top (Founders Hall, main level, south side). Skylights bring daylight into the interior of the building but have a more limited application. Not all roofs and ceilings lend themselves to skylight applications. Any skylight requires excellent roofing workmanship and a roof surface that can handle the protrusion a skylight creates. ECM #14: Restroom Demand Recirculation Pumps Description: When users have to wait for hot water, both water and energy are wasted. Many commercial bathrooms employ continuous circulation of hot water – a benefit to users, but a large energy waster. A better alternative -demand recirculation- can achieve sufficient user satisfaction, energy savings and water savings. An occupancy sensor in the bathroom activates the circulation pump. The pump returns the water in the hot water supply pipes to the hot water storage tank and replaces it with hot water from the tank. The user turns on the faucet and a moment later hot water is flowing. Combine this demand-recirculation strategy with continuous pipe insulation, flow restrictors, automatic flow shutoff and a water-temperature setpoint of 120 degrees F, and the campus will minimize water and energy use for hot water. ECM #15: Turn Off Electronics and Appliances Description: According to the U.S. Department of Energy, office equipment makes up about 16% of a building’s energy use. Strategies aimed at reducing energy usage include the following: 1. Install power-management software to control monitors and CPU’s. “Sleep” mode can reduce energy expenses by up to 50%. The EPA provides free power-management software. 2. Encourage occupants to turn computers off before they go home. Shutting down one computer/monitor nightly and on weekends saves up to $80 per year per unit. 3. Utilize “all-in-one” products. A printer that also serves as a fax machine and copier will save energy. 4. Choose office equipment that is ENERGY STAR rated. It’s estimated that an organization that replaces old equipment with ENERGY STAR equipment will reduce energy consumption by 15% - 30 for that item ECM #16: Replace Dirty Filters Description: Clogged filters reduce airflow, which makes the air-handler work harder to push air through (which increases energy consumption). Dirty filters can cost up to $5 extra per month per filter. Strategies aimed at reducing energy usage include the following: 1. Use filters with static pressure sensors on two sides of the filter. These sensors connect to the BAS and send an alert when the static pressure rises to a predetermined setpoint OR 27 2. Use products that measure how hard the fan is working. The motor amps on the blower are monitored continuously. When they reach a certain point, the sensor sends out a message. ECM #17: Repair Dripping Faucets Description: One hot-water faucet that leaks at a rate of 1 gallon per hour wastes $30 to $120 in energy per year. A possible solution would be to replace hand-operated controls with touchless sensors. ECM #18: Unnecessary Vending Machine Cooling and Lighting Description: Vending machines use electricity 24/7. Strategies aimed at reducing energy usage include the following: 1. If possible, turn off vending machines at night and weekends. 2. Install motion sensors near machines to keep tab on nearby traffic. The sensors can be used to lessen cooling when people are scarce. Payback is usually under two years. ECM #19: Cleaning at Night Description: Custodial staff expends energy during off-peak hours when they come in to clean. Strategies aimed at reducing energy usage include the following: 1. More cleaning in the daytime (if possible) allows building systems to be turned down sooner at night OR 2. Have custodial staff move throughout the building as a team, cleaning one floor at a time and turning on and off lights as they go. ECM #20: Optimize Equipment Start-Up Time and Sequencing Description: According to the EPA, if each piece of equipment in your facility is starting up at 8 AM, your peak demand will be much higher than if equipment starts up sequentially at 7:45 AM. Strategies aimed at reducing energy usage include the following: 1. Bring equipment online throughout a period of about 30 minutes or so. Test different options to figure out latest possible start-up times. Do the same thing when it comes to powering down equipment. 2. Control the amount of outdoor air being brought into spaces using CO2 sensors. The payback time can be extremely short. ECM #21: Properly Locate Thermostats Description: Direct sunlight, drafts, vents, people walking by, space heaters and fans, etc. all affect thermostat readings, calling for more heating and cooling when it’s not needed. We recommend conducting a thermostat audit and relocate as necessary. ECM #22: Exhaust Fans Description: Most exhaust fans are designed to run 24/7. Strategies aimed at reducing energy usage include the following: 28 1. AM). 2. 3. Turn down the exhaust volume for certain periods of time (between 10:30 PM and 6 Make sure the corresponding amount of intake air is also being reduced. Connect restroom exhaust fans to occupancy sensors. Verify that exhaust fans are not running at speeds higher than necessary. ECM #23: Uncover Vents, Grills, Etc. Description: Furniture placed in front of vents blocks airflow. Conduct a space audit and move furniture/equipment. If not possible, then move the vent. Alternative and Renewable Energy Historical trends and future predictions indicate the demand for energy will continue to rise. Higher prices, reduced supplies, along with stricter federal guidelines for coal emissions, necessitate a shift from traditional energy sources towards increased reliance on alternative energy. Alternative energy is produced from renewable sources such as fuel cell, solar energy, biofuels and wind power. The college intends to take the lead in developing leaders, experts and professionals in what will undoubtedly become a fast-growing, high-demand industry. Production of Natural Gas Approximately 50% of the natural gas consumed on the main campus of the College is produced on site from wells that were tapped in the 1980’s when gas prices were at a historic high. One of those wells is still producing a good reliable supply. Another one of the existing wells is not producing much at the moment. This well could be evaluated for the possibility of re-drilling and taking it deeper. The possibility of drilling a new well is also an option. Over the course of the next year the college is going to be exploring the potential for increasing the gas produced on-site. If Hocking College can increase production and reduce consumption through improvements in boiler systems and HVAC systems, it seems feasible that the College could produce enough gas to become self-reliant on main campus. Geothermal - Ground Water Sourced Heating and Cooling The Earth’s heat is continuously radiated from within, and each year rainfall and snowmelt supply new water to geothermal reservoirs. Production from an individual geothermal well can be sustained for decades and perhaps centuries. The U.S. Department of Energy classifies geothermal energy as renewable. By using geothermal for heating and cooling the use of fossil fuels is adverted and the carbon footprint is much smaller. Ohio is a good part of the country for using geothermal for both heating and cooling. Hocking College plans on utilizing this source of energy any time it is practical and cost effective. This applies to both new construction and renovations. Solar Power The photovoltaic industry has achieved impressive improvements in solar cell efficiencies and significant cost reductions. Photovoltaic cells today can achieve efficiencies between 12 and 20 percent, well above what they were just 15 years ago. The price of photovoltaic panels has 29 declined from $100/watt in the 1970s to the current price of approximately $3.00/watt. The global photovoltaic industry is expanding rapidly; global manufacturing of solar cells stood at 58 megawatts (58,000,000 watts) per year in 1992 and has risen to over 1,600 megawatts (1,600,000,000 watts) per year in 2005 - an increase of almost 30% per annum over the past 15 years. Analysts believe that the photovoltaic industry will continue to see impressive gains in efficiencies and cost reductions as economies of scale come into play with larger production facilities. As the economics for solar power improves Hocking College will include solar power as an energy resource. Wind turbine Wind-powered electric systems, as an industry has, experienced major growth in the past decade. These turbines, which are defined as 100 kilowatts in capacity and below, have seen their market grow significantly and the industry has set ambitious growth targets. The U.S. is the leading world producer of small wind turbines, the vast majority of which are manufactured on U.S. soil. Wind power is very competitive with solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass, and diesel generators. Although small wind systems involve a significant initial investment, they can be competitive with conventional energy sources when you account for a lifetime of reduced or altogether avoided utility costs, especially considering escalating fuel costs. The cost of buying and installing a small wind energy system typically ranges from about $3,0005,000 per kilowatt for a grid-connected installation, less than half the cost of a similar solar electric system. The economics of a wind system are very sensitive to the average wind speed in the area, and to a lesser extent, the cost of purchasing electricity. As a general rule of thumb a turbine needs to have at least a 10-mph average wind speed and the electric costs of at least 10 cents/kWh for electricity. On average Ohio has under 10-mph wind speed, so the feasibility of installing wind turbine will need to wait until the costs come down. Campus-Wide Support Student and Staff Involvement Hocking College will engage the students and staff to participate in energy conservation on campus. Some simple practices that will significantly impact the use of electricity and heating for the college are as follows: 1. Turning off lights whenever a room is not in use. 2. Turning off computer monitors when leaving for a considerable amount of time. 3. Closing blinds at the end of the day. 4. Discontinuing use of portable space heaters. 5. Turning off printers and copiers when not in use. 6. Closing the fume hoods to minimum levels whenever possible. As an example of the impact student involvement can have on an energy conservation program, an inter-dorm energy-conservation competition was held at Dartmouth College and the winner reduced their building's energy use by 15 percent. The truth of the matter is, that day-to-day energy conservation is easy, even for us busy college students. Reductions in energy use, even ones that may seem trivial, are one of the simplest ways for individuals to take direct responsibility for their environment. Flying out the door to get to 30 class? Hit the lights on your way out -- it only takes a second. Is winter weather giving you the chills? Think about throwing on a sweater instead of dialing up the heat. Hocking College will be continuously promoting energy conservation that is good not only for the campus, but also a positive global impact, which is a growing concern for everyone. Facilities Energy Committee The committee will be charged with always keeping in mind our energy savings goals. The facilities energy committee is comprised of engineers and technicians with different expertise, who meet regularly to go over building schedules, and make sure everything is running at optimal efficiency. Watching outside temperatures, they manage a reset schedule for the water supply temperature, thus keeping the heating supply temperature at a point that will keep the building warm, yet save energy. The facility staff constantly monitors building temperatures to maintain an optimum comfort level as well as conserve energy. This committee also suggests reviews, and implements energy savings projects. Utility Awareness Plan The college is committed to ensuring that our staff and students are aware of, and actively participate in, utility conservation and management measures. As part of our Utility Awareness Plan, Hocking College will provide basic energy conservation guidelines throughout each year, particularly preceding holiday breaks when conservation can be maximized. In addition the college has its own in house facilities management program that oversees the daily operations of all facilities. They will routinely tour facilities to ensure safe and effective environments. They still promptly report water leaks, lighting issues, temperature problems or other facility issues to the facilities office. The program will maintain a reporting log to ensure resolution of maintenance issues. Communications Educational program that promote personal involvement, generates additional savings over and above those derived from technological efficiencies. The program enhances the college’s environmental stewardship by using a holistic approach to energy efficiency and conservation. When used in conjunction with energy projects, the awareness program maximizes acceptance and satisfaction with newly installed building retrofits. The program also fosters a conservation climate, which spawns additional conservation activities and pro-environmental opportunities. Communication is very important. Methods of communication include a regular newsletter and signage that helps educate (and encourages participation of) students and staff about the energy programs and features in their building. Simple informational signs can communicate accomplishments, and the benefits to students and staff. Compelling case studies and success stories are also effective tools in encouraging participation. Campus communications media and meetings will be used to publicize energy policy energy awareness, the benefits of energy and water conservation, and how individuals can participate in these conservation measures. Campus Operating Guidelines (Policy) Hocking College will develop comprehensive operating guidelines that will spell out operating parameters ranging from space temperature set points to operating schedules. The guidelines will not only address HVAC operation, but also lighting levels and operation. This guideline will be adopted by the board and will give the facility staff the opportunity to manage the buildings, staff, 31 and students to a common agreed upon standard. Development of the “Operating Guidelines,” will be done in conjunction with the HB-7 project described at the end of this plan. The following is a sample: When the cooling season is reached, areas will be scheduled as follows: Between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. and 6 p.m. Saturday, classrooms will be scheduled for air conditioning. Between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, office spaces will be scheduled for air conditioning. The Library shall be scheduled for air conditioning, one hour prior to its posted opening and one hour after its posted closing. Campus air conditioning systems should be scheduled to be turned off during college holidays. Those areas with events occurring shall be scheduled through a request to the facility department. The systems shall be powered up at 4 hours prior to a return from an extended vacation period. The main computer room is excluded from this policy. Campus air conditioning systems shall be set to maintain a setpoint of 75 degrees Fahrenheit in all occupied spaces. During unoccupied periods, outside air dampers shall be closed and the setpoint shall be 84 degrees Fahrenheit. Summary The recommendations provided to the College by Aleron, Inc. in their Energy Conservation Plan directly address our desire to become more efficient in our scope 2 emission sources in addition to numerous other positive outcomes for the College. Hocking College intends to aggressively implement the first ten (10) ECMs within the next 2 years. Funding for these projects will be a combination of in-house monies, State of Ohio funding opportunities and grants. ECM eleven (11) and other alternative energy projects will follow as grants and partnerships with both public and private organizations continue to develop. We plan on reducing our carbon footprint by at least 2000 MTCO2e within the next ten years through these initiatives. 32 Mitigation Strategies Land Management Plan This is a comprehensive plan to manage all of our lands as responsible land use stewards. We will be seeking to have our plan accredited through the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). To date, only three other colleges or universities have achieved this distinction, North Carolina State, University of Washington and Yale University. Hocking College will be the fourth soon. The idea of seeking certification for our developing land management plan (LMP) came from a faculty and student proposal to the administration. This is an important point, as the full implementation of this plan will require considerable and perpetual involvement from our faculty and students through class projects. As mentioned in the introduction, this is where the strength of our School of Natural Resources is fully recognized. The SFI certification is a holistic plan for an ecosystem, not solely focused on the trees. It involves planning for forest management, wildlife habitat, hydrology, geology, archaeology, recreation, biodiversity, controlling invasive species, landscaping and education. The twenty (20) objectives for SFI certification compliment our education goals as well as our Sustainability goals. Hocking College owns nearly 2,500 acres of forested land that is primarily used as an educational laboratory. Given the size of our School of Natural Resources combined with our propensity to deliver hands-on education, class activity in the field is often hectic. The LMP will help us coordinate our educational activities to minimize project conflicts. The region of Southeast Ohio that Hocking College is situated in has a long history of land abuse. Centuries of timber harvesting combined with over a hundred years of coal mining have left their mark on the landscape. This is evident on the forested property of Hocking College. This includes streams polluted with acid mine drainage, varied forest stand successions, erosion problems and sprawling invasive species. Despite these concerns, the forested lands can become a vibrant ecosystem in a relatively short period of time through sound land management practices. Development of the LMP began in January of 2010. This land management plan will also help us achieve the goal of carbon neutrality. Once we have implemented our plan, we will be able to count our forested acreage as positive carbon offsets. The average ratio in Ohio is a range of 2.5 -4.5 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalency (MTCO2) per acre. The higher part of that range is typically for lands with sound land management practices. Our nearly 2500 acres of forested land throughout all of our properties gives us a rather unique opportunity to create a large carbon sink on our own property. We realize that equating acreage to MTCO2e is not a direct reduction in the college’s footprint. However, as we develop our forested lands into a healthier ecosystem, it will have a positive effect on future GHG inventories. We hope that by the year 2020 that our forested lands will contribute a reduction of ca. 6,000 MTCO2e. 33 Future Mitigation Strategies This final section of our plan will outline strategies that we may develop in the second stage in our overall plan to achieve carbon neutrality. These ideas include projects that need more development time, funding allocations and in some cases, suitable partners. Once we have our first two primary initiatives underway, the energy conservation measures and the land management plan; we will then shift to exploring the following potential strategies. This process will be updated annually in our progress reports. Energy 1. Expand our solar energy collection throughout all of our institution. In most cases, it is financially prudent to only install the amount of photovoltaic panels to compensate for the amount of energy used so that the end result is balanced. However, if funding and or partnerships allow, we may want to consider literally blanketing our buildings with solar panels to maximize renewable energy credits that we can use to offset our footprint. We will be in a better position to evaluate this concept once we complete ECM #11 which involves a large solar array on top of our student center to help cover the costs of heating our swimming pool. 2. Explore partnership opportunities with American Electric Power (AEP). The combination of our Logan Energy institute and student projects with AEP’s need to generate more renewable energy could create a symbiotic partnership. Preliminary discussions have already begun. 3. Explore retrofitting campus facilities to utilize geothermal heating. Cost will be a challenge, but this option would work on our properties. If geothermal heating is feasible, once combined with our own natural gas, the College may be able to dramatically reduce its heating bills and emissions. 4. Wind power could be installed at our Lake Snowden recreational facility in Albany, Ohio. While wind power is not considered viable in many parts of SE Ohio, the area of Albany with its higher elevation and rolling topography does lend itself to this notion. The Lake Snowden park office, Sauber Educational Center that hosts our Archaeology program, and our fish hatchery at Lake Snowden, all could benefit from wind power. 5. Consider implementing a small student fee, $1 per credit, to invest in Green Tags or Renewable Energy Credits (REC). This is a concept that many other institutions have tried and seems to be effective. This would allow the College to invest in the production of new renewable energy in Ohio and considerably offset our scope 2 emissions. It should be considered along with student leadership and even allow students to vote on the idea. This approach could be another partnership opportunity with AEP. Transportation 1. Implement annual parking fees for all employees and students. While this idea may not be the most popular at the College, we must address the largest contributor to our carbon footprint, commuting. This will involve numerous strategies, all requiring funding. Parking 34 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. fess could support these new strategies. Parking fees themselves could also act as a deterrent for some thereby reducing vehicles coming to campus. Two fees are proposed, one for a green permit for vehicles that have ca.30 mpg or higher. The green permit will be at a reduced cost and have more favorable parking spots. The other permit, red, will cost more and require the permit holder to park farther from most buildings. It is proposed that this fee apply to all students with only the red fee applying to employees. Employees with vehicles deserving of the green permit will receive them for free. Upon acquiring any permit, we will collect data on the individual’s vehicle and commuting habits to use in our ongoing GHG reports. Install plug-in locations for electric cars. This trend will increase over the next few years, maybe even dramatically. These locations will be free to all who can use them. They should be solar powered thereby creating a financial and emission free mode of travel to the College. Encourage more bike usage for the campus community. Landscaped rest stops and additional bike racks along our new extended bike path would be a positive contribution. Create some kind of incentive for students who ride a bike to campus versus driving. Develop a bike share program for students. We currently have a large number of bikes that have either been confiscated by campus police or abandoned by students sitting in one of our shelter houses. These bikes could be repaired and cleaned up to create an initial inventory for student use. Students could show their ID to check out a bike for a period of time at no cost, albeit the student is responsible for any damage to the bike in their care. This would give students who do not have the money to purchase a bike the opportunity to commute to campus without paying for gas to creating emissions. Audit our aging fleet of vehicles for a cost analysis of repairing them versus replacement. This fleet includes cars for typical day-to-day business, vans for class field trips and school buses for field trips. All of these vehicles get heavy usage, especially the vans and buses. Our technicians do a great job keeping them running, but many of these vehicles are on their last leg. It may be time to look at replacement. If so, we would want to strongly consider new vehicles that maximize new alternative energy technology. Develop a public transport system for students. The vehicle, a van or bus, could be electric powered using plug in stations at three primary stops, Logan, Nelsonville and Lake Snowden. This initiative would involve costs for the vehicle, upkeep and personnel to drive it, hence more justification for the parking fee system. This is a plan that we must find a solution for as it has the best potential to make the biggest impact on our student commuter emissions. Waste Management 1. Create a new recycling and reuse facility on our main campus. This facility would consist of a pole building structure, perhaps 50’x75’, compactors and storage space for recyclable materials and space to temporarily store usable equipment to redistribute throughout the campus. This would allow us to significantly reduce our waste flow to landfills creating cost savings, good campus stewardship and a small emissions reduction. 2. Seek grant funding to acquire a food waste compactor to process food waste from our food services, Inn and culinary program. This waste could be mixed with the waste generated from our equine programs, horse manure and sawdust from stall cleaning, to create compost. The compost in itself can be counted as a carbon offset as well as be used 35 in our landscape management program on campus. This goal along with our goal of utilizing more local food sources (part of our institutional Sustainability Plan, not included in the CAP report) would essentially complete the cycle for our food production, consumption and disposal. Carbon Offsets 1. Simply purchasing carbon credits from an entity such as the Chicago Climate Exchange is an option that at this initial point of planning we will keep on the table. However, it is a last resort that we will exercise only if we exhaust all other options. This option appears to be nothing more than paying a fine to cover our sins. While this approach is effective in a technical sense, we want our time, energy and money used to achieve carbon neutrality to have multiple positive outcomes for our campus community as we think that most of our proposed plans will accomplish. Furthermore, we want our effort to embody what we believe is a core concept of Sustainability – Keep it local! 2. Expand our land management strategy beyond our campus. We would like to offer land management planning to private landowners and/or businesses in Southeast Ohio with 50 acres or more. In exchange for our services, which also would create projects for a variety of Natural Resources classes, we would gain ownership of the offset credits. The landowner gets a free, or very inexpensive, land management plan, students get a great real world experience, the College reduces its carbon footprint and the community gains more healthy forests. 3. Expand goal #2 mentioned just above to undesirable or reclaimed mine lands that need either aforestation or reforestation planning. If we compare this idea with that of purchasing carbon credits, it would be a far better investment of College dollars to take the same amount of money to invest in land that we would manage. This would create significant new carbon offsets through new forests, more locations for educational activities and ownership of the land itself versus a piece of paper denoting our credits purchased. This idea could also be another option to engage some of our partners in the region. 36 Conclusion The challenge of transforming our campus into a sustainable system that eliminates green house gas emissions is just that, a challenge. Many other colleges and universities, nearly 700 now, are also facing the same challenge. The approaches to these challenges are as varied as the institutions supporting them. This comes as no surprise as the role of higher of education in this country is far more than just meeting the educational needs of its students. American colleges and universities are not afraid to explore new challenges; in fact they embrace the opportunity. Business and industry will explore transformational change only when the economy, market opportunity or consumers are the driving forces. Quite frankly, we cannot wait for that process to evolve; our window of opportunity to minimize climatic change that will negatively effect our way of life on this planet is dwindling. Higher education must lead the way now, developing new sustainable approaches to business and life that others can follow. It is obvious that Hocking College is not the only institution that shares this sentiment as demonstrated by the growing number of members in the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. The recent development of our Office of Sustainability at Hocking College is just the beginning of our long-term goals within the broad field of sustainability. There are three major planning efforts underway involving sustainability at our College, the ACUPCC plan, the land management plan and the master plan for sustainability. The first two plans have been discussed in this report. The master plan will involve many initiatives that may not necessarily involve a reduction in our carbon footprint, but they will directly support our sustainability mission: “Living, working and learning in an environment that we commit to maintain and improve for future generations“. This involves incorporating sustainability into all of our curricula, wherever appropriate so that all of our graduates will leave Hocking College viewing sustainability not as a new concept, rather as an approach to living. It involves changing operational systems to support local and sustainable business. The plan also includes campus changes that will positively effect the work environment of our employees. One of the exciting parts of this growing new office is how the three planning initiatives are beginning to gravitate toward each other. The projects and goals of each plan seem to overlap on a more frequent basis creating a more singular approach. 37 We are optimistic about our ability to achieve the goals set forth by this commitment. The unique assets of Hocking College discussed in the introduction of this document, the positive support from the College administration and our planning strategies breed such optimism. It is for these reasons that we have decided to take a practical approach to this commitment rather than the more obscure approach of saying our institution will become climate neutral by 2050. Instead, we have set the goal of reducing our carbon footprint 40% by 2020. This percentage and date are based on specific plans that are already set in motion and are even considered conservative by our calculations. Additionally, there are many unknown variables in the near future that could either complicate or simplify our plans. These include state and federal economies and their effect on supporting public higher education, new technology in alternative energy and the effectiveness of our initial plans. We will adapt to new challenges and seize opportunities within our plan as they develop through future progress reports. The staff, faculty, and students of Hocking College are thrilled that their institution has made the commitment to become a member of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment. We aspire to not only meet the goals of this commitment, but to become a nationally recognized example of a sustainable campus.