UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Approved by
The University of Maryland University College Climate Action Plan
Workgroup
The UMUC Climate Action Plan Workgroup is composed of seven
UMUC staff members with an intimate understanding of facilities
management.
The President of University of Maryland University College,
Dr. Susan Aldridge
Coordinated by
Sean Williamson
Faculty Research Assistant, Center for Integrative Environmental Research
The Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) at the
University of Maryland addresses complex environmental challenges
through research that explores the dynamic interactions among
environmental, economic and social forces and stimulates active dialogue
with stakeholders, researchers and decision makers. Researchers and
students at CIER, working at local, regional, national and global scales, are
developing strategies and tools to guide policy and investment decisions.
For additional information, visit www.cier.umd.edu.
2
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This work was supported by many members of the UMUC campus community whom the
author would like to thank for their sincere contributions. George Trujillo, Associate Vice
President for the Facilities Management Department, provided critical financial support
for the analysis and writing. Cora Lee Gilbert-Catron in the Facilities Management
Department provided essential leadership and guidance. Furthermore, the authors would
like to thank the entire UMUC Climate Action Plan Workgroup for their time, effort and
valuable input throughout the project.
University of Maryland, University College – Climate Action Plan Workgroup
George Trujillo, Associate Vice President for Facilities Management
Steve Bello, Project Manager
Cora Lee Gilbert-Catron, Contract Administrator, Facilities Management
Raj Singh, Engineering Supervisor
Jacob Smith, Director of Facilities Financials
Kestutis Vaitkus, Assistant Vice President, Facilities Management
Donald Evans, Building Manager
Additionally, the University gratefully acknowledges the following individuals for
assisting the GHG Taskforce with locating data and sharing their insight on campus
operations: Javier Miyares, Vice President, Office of Institutional Planning, Research and
Accountability; Joan Kowal, University of Maryland, Energy Manager, Financial
Services; Erika Heilig, University of Maryland, Facilities Management; Tim Mason,
Research Assistant, Office of Institutional Planning, Research and Accountability;
Denise Nadasen, Associate VP, Office of Institutional, Research and Accountability;
Suzanne Scott Ferguson, UMUC Office of Human Resources; Heather Lair, University of
Maryland, Office of Sustainability; Ramy Serour, University of Maryland, CIER
Research Assistant, Pranav Vaidya, University of Maryland, CIER Research Assistant.
University of Maryland, College Park – Climate Action Planning Workgroup
Finally, the author would like to thank the University of Maryland, College Park Climate
Action Planning Workgroup and the UMCP Office of Sustainability, which formulated a
thorough and thoughtful Climate Action Plan. The UMCP Climate Action Plan was an
essential tool for guiding development of UMUC’s Climate Action Plan. Because of the
institutional investment made by UMCP and their openness in sharing lessons learned,
UMUC was better prepared to consider its planning opportunities and challenges.
3
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary
5
Chapter 1 – Introduction
1.1 Background
1.2 Process and Methodology
1.3 Approach
1.4 Expected Impacts
9
9
10
12
15
Chapter 2 – Administration Actions
2.1 Description
2.2 Background
2.3 Strategies
2.4 Next Steps
18
18
18
20
23
Chapter 3 – Electricity Procurement Actions
3.1 Description
3.2 Background
3.3 Strategies
3.4 Expected Impacts
3.5 Next Steps
24
24
24
26
33
35
Chapter 4 – Transportation Actions
4.1 Description
4.2 Background
4.3 Strategies
4.4 Expected Impacts
4.5 Next Steps
36
36
38
44
51
53
Chapter 5 – Education and Outreach Actions
5.1 Description
5.2 Background
5.3 Strategies
5.4 Next Steps
54
54
55
56
57
Chapter 6 – Financing and Implementation
6.1 Implementation
6.2 Financing the CAP
59
59
60
4
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This report is the Climate Action Plan (CAP) for the University of Maryland University
College (The University, UMUC). The CAP is a follow-up to UMUC’s first greenhouse
gas (GHG) inventory, completed in January 2009. The CAP outlines the University’s
plans for reaching carbon neutrality, or a net of zero GHG emissions, by 2050. The CAP
also outlines plans for how the University will continue to integrate climate outreach and
education into its operations.
Objectives
The objectives of the UMUC CAP are as follows:






Establish a timeline for reaching carbon neutrality at UMUC;
Select a set of climate strategies that will allow UMUC to meet its climate
neutrality target;
Identify how UMUC can continue to integrate the themes of carbon neutrality and
sustainability into outreach activities and educational curriculum;
Identify implementation and financing mechanisms for the plan;
Develop mechanisms to track progress of the plan;
Meet the American Colleges and Universities President’s Climate Commitment
reporting deadline.
Background
In November 2007, the University of Maryland University College President signed the
American Colleges and Universities President’s Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), which
is a pledge to reduce campus GHG emissions and achieve carbon neutrality. The
University has since taken numerous tangible actions and completed its first GHG
inventory. Total GHG emissions were equal to 23,017 MTCO2e in fiscal year (FY) 2008
with emissions coming from two major sources. Roughly 45 percent of emissions came
from electricity procurement and 50 percent came from transportation (See Figure ES.1).
The University’s carbon footprint is relatively low, particularly when measured as per
capita GHG emissions. This fact is largely the result of the distance-learning model
employed at UMUC.
In spring 2009, the University initiated climate action planning by commissioning a
Climate Action Plan Workgroup (CAP Workgroup) designated with the task of
formulating and evaluating climate strategies. The CAP Workgroup consists of UMUC
staff familiar with energy and power operations, transportation operations, and
administrative functioning at different University locations.
5
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Figure ES.1 Total GHG Emissions from UMUC by End-use, FY 2008
Over the course of the past year, the UMUC CAP Workgroup has developed 13 strategies
to directly mitigate GHG emissions and another 15 to assist mitigation efforts and expand
outreach and education. In combination, the strategies are expected to reduce GHG
emissions to a net of zero by 2050 and raise awareness among employees, students, and
individuals outside of the UMUC community. However, given uncertainties about clean
energy technology, effectiveness of the mitigation strategies, and broader University
trends, including growth in enrollment and occupied space, the CAP will be iteratively
evaluated and revised to address changing circumstances.
Summary of Strategies
Key strategies designed to achieve the objectives include:
Administrative
 Develop an Environmentally Preferable Procurement Policy
 Create position of Sustainability Coordinator to facilitate CAP implementation
 Renovate all newly purchased buildings to reduce electricity consumption and
achieve LEED certification
Electricity Procurement
 University-wide adoption of Smart Strips
 Purchase renewable energy credits (RECs)
 Invest in energy efficiency projects including lighting retrofits and demand
control ventilation
6
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Transportation
 Facilitate ridesharing by employees and students
 Install and encourage use of videoconferencing facilities
 Expand and encourage flexible scheduling and telecommuting options for
employees
Outreach and Education
 Incorporate sustainability awareness into student and employee orientations
 Increase visibility of climate goals and accomplishments
 Continue to participate in local and regional research efforts
Expected Impacts
The combined GHG mitigation strategies outlined in the CAP are expected to get the
University to climate neutrality by 2050 (See Figure ES.2). In 2012, the first milestone
year, the University expects total emissions to be 10 percent below the FY 2008
(Baseline) level. Subsequent milestone goals are as follows:



By 2015, total GHG emissions will be 15% below the FY 2008 baseline level
By 2020, total GHG emissions will be 25% below the FY 2008 baseline level
By 2050, total GHG emissions will be 100% below the FY 2008 baseline level
Implementation and Next Steps
A great deal of work remains in implementing the CAP, tracking progress, and revising
strategies as necessary. Specific implementation steps including designation of
responsibility and plans for financing the CAP are highlighted in the chapters that follow.
UMUC will next complete a GHG inventory for calendar year 2009, publically report CY
2009 GHG emissions in January 2011, and complete a GHG inventory every two years
thereafter.
7
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Figure ES.2 Total GHG Emissions Reductions from all Mitigation Strategies, 2012 to 2050, Relative to the 2008 Overall Baseline (23,017 MTCO2e)
8
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
CHAPTER 1 - INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
On November 30, 2007, University of Maryland University College (The University,
UMUC) President Susan Aldridge signed the American Colleges and Universities
President’s Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), which is a pledge to reduce campus
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and achieve carbon neutrality. Neutrality is defined as
the process of reducing and offsetting GHG producing operations in order to make net
GHG emissions equal to zero. Prior to conducting a GHG inventory or considering
mitigation policies, the University took two tangible actions including:
1.)
2.)
Establishing a policy that all new campus construction would be built to at
least the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Silver standard.
Adopting an energy-efficiency purchasing policy for appliances, which
requires the purchase of ENERGY STAR certified products.
On January 15, 2009, UMUC submitted its first ever GHG inventory, Carbon Footprint
of the University of Maryland University College: An Inventory of Greenhouse Gas
Emissions (FY 2007-2008). The inventory, which was conducted by the Center for
Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) at the University of Maryland College Park,
included emissions from direct sources (e.g., on-campus boilers, campus fleet, fertilizer
applications, etc.) and indirect sources (e.g., electricity procurement, waste water
generated, commuting, air travel, etc.). Total GHG emissions were equal to 23,017
MTCO2e in fiscal year (FY) 2008 with less than 4 percent coming from scope one direct
emissions and the remainder coming from scopes two and three indirect emissions; 45
percent of emissions came from electricity procurement and 50 percent came from air
travel and student, faculty, and staff commuting. The GHG inventory results for FYs
2007 and 2008 and supporting documentation are publicly available at the ACUPCC
reporting website. Figure 1.1 visualizes total FY 2008 GHG emissions at UMUC.
9
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Figure 1.1 Total GHG Emissions from UMUC by End-use, FY 2008
GHG emissions from FY 2008 serve as the baseline for the University throughout the
Climate Action Plan (CAP). The concept of a baseline is critical because all future GHG
emissions inventories and all GHG mitigation projects will be evaluated in reference to
the baseline year emissions. FY 2008 was selected as the baseline year because it was the
most current year for which data were available.
1.2 Process and Methodology
In spring 2009, the University initiated climate action planning by selecting the Center
for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) at the University of Maryland, College
Park to coordinate CAP formulation and analysis. Additionally, a Climate Action Plan
Workgroup (CAP Workgroup) composed of UMUC staff was commissioned to guide
CAP development and evaluate proposed strategies. The CAP Workgroup consists of
UMUC staff familiar with energy and power operations, transportation operations, and
administrative functioning at different University locations.
The first accomplishment of the CAP Workgroup was to identify a timeline for reaching
carbon neutrality. The CAP Workgroup chose to follow the State of Maryland’s pace of
reducing emissions as outlined in the Maryland Commission on Climate Change’s
Climate Action Plan and the GHG Reduction Act of 2009 1,2. The University’s milestones
1
Maryland Climate Action Plan, Published August, 2008. Available Online:
http://www.mde.state.md.us/air/climatechange/index.asp.
2
Maryland GHG Reduction Act of 2009, Signed in May, 2009. Available Online:
http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/billfile/Sb0278.htm.
10
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
for GHG reductions relative to the State of Maryland are represented in Table 1.1. All
reductions are relative to the University’s baseline year of FY 2008. UMUC’s primary
goal is to reach neutrality by 2050. The secondary goal is to meet the milestones and stay
on pace, though it is not critical each milestone is met.
Table 1.1 UMUC Climate Neutrality Milestones
2012
2015
2020
2050
UMUC – 2008 Baseline
10%
15%
25%
100%
Maryland State Goals – 2006 Baseline
10%
15%
25%
90%
Following selection of a GHG reduction timeline, researchers at CIER met with the CAP
Workgroup to propose, discuss, and evaluate various strategies intended to reduce the
University’s GHG emissions and increase climate awareness on campus. This process
was guided by a shared understanding that no single strategy would achieve carbon
neutrality and that a portfolio of multiple strategies would be the best approach. CIER
researchers proposed a number of strategies, many of which were adapted from other
colleges and universities striving to achieve carbon neutrality. For example, creating a
position of Sustainability Coordinator, which is explained further in Chapter 2, is fast
becoming standard at colleges and universities. Likewise, many strategies were proposed
by the CAP Workgroup paralleling existing plans to improve energy efficiency in UMUC
buildings and improve commuting and transportation at the University.
Next, all of the strategies were evaluated both qualitatively and quantitatively. Qualitative
analysis focused on potential financial and implementation challenges and also involved
analysis of co-benefits, or benefits that accrue indirectly as a result of a particular
strategy. The shortcomings of qualitative analysis and the need for quantitative
information to guide CAP financing and implementation demanded projects be evaluated
quantitatively as well. Of particular importance to the CAP Workgroup in distinguishing
among various mitigation strategies were criteria of costs, benefits, net present valuation,
and costs/savings per reduction of MTCO2e. For example, strategies designed to reduce
electricity consumption or shift electricity to cleaner sources of energy were suitable for
standard, project-based economic analysis. Conversely, many educational and
administrative strategies do not have quantifiable costs or benefits and were instead
evaluated solely on a qualitative basis.
Finally, the CAP Workgroup reconciled the portfolio of mitigation strategies with the
desired timeline for neutrality by adjusting project specifications and start dates. Project
costs (NPV/MTCO2e) reduced and co-benefits were established as the primary criteria
for comparing strategies. In general, the strategies with the greatest savings or lowest
costs per MTCO2e reduced are endorsed in the short-term, while strategies with a higher
cost per MTCO2e reduced are pushed back to later years. The hope is that costs for GHGreducing technology will decrease and regulatory uncertainties will clarify with time,
paving the way for more GHG mitigation opportunities at the University.
11
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
1.3 Approach
Scope and Structure of the Climate Action Plan
The University’s Climate Action Plan focuses only on GHG emissions within the FY
2008 inventory boundary, which includes:
1) Only buildings owned and controlled by the University or for which the
University pays the electric-power bill.
2) For commuting, all stateside online students and only Washington, DC metro area
and Maryland faculty, staff, and face-to-face/hybrid course students.
The CAP primarily focuses on strategies that will mitigate GHG emissions from
electricity and transportation, which accounted for 95 percent of the University’s
emissions in FY 2008. Strategies designed to mitigate emissions from de minimis
sources, or sources that independently account for less than 5 percent of the University’s
GHG emissions (e.g., solid waste, vehicle fleet), are not explicitly addressed in the CAP
3
. However, a number of strategies are put forth in the CAP to advance awareness of
climate change and sustainability at the University, which will indirectly reduce
emissions from de minimis sources and otherwise reduce UMUC’s environmental
footprint.
Types of Strategies
The strategies put forth are organized into five categories, which appear as separate
chapters in the CAP. A brief description of each category follows:
Administrative Strategies (A):
 May indirectly reduce the University’s GHG emissions;
 Address activities, practices and policies that cut across the entire University;
 Foster a paradigm shift within the UMUC community to consciously
recognize the institutional commitment to climate neutrality.
Electricity Mitigation Strategies (E):
 Directly reduce the University’s GHG emissions from purchased electricity;
 Address electricity procurement at University Centre, Academic Center at
Largo, Dorsey Station and the Adelphi Campus;
 Seek to both reduce electricity consumption AND shift to cleaner, renewable
forms of electricity while saving on utility bills.
Transportation Mitigation Strategies (T):
 Directly reduce the University’s GHG emissions from transportation;
 Address faculty, staff and student commuting;
 Address air travel financed by the University;
 Seek to make alternative transit more favorable, reduce trips, and capitalize
on the benefits of working/learning-from-home.
3
The reason for excluding de minimis emissions in this iteration of the CAP is that any reduction from these sources
will likely be cost-ineffective relative to sources that account for a larger portion of total emissions. To reach climate
neutrality, de minimis sources will be addressed.
12
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Outreach and Education Strategies (O&E):
 May indirectly reduce the University’s GHG emissions;
 Encourage the campus community and curriculum to adopt the mission of
climate neutrality and sustainability;
 Seek to create an atmosphere of buy-in and participation on and off campus.
Implementation and Financing (I&F):
 Provide general guidance on next steps for successful implementation;
 Highlight need to identify clear funding mechanisms for the CAP;
 Emphasize need to continually monitor and reassess the CAP so that best
practices can be adopted by the University.
Assumptions and Campus Growth
A number of assumptions were made in formulating the CAP. From project start dates to
the cost of electricity in 2020, to the average electricity demand of a UMUC computer
and the impact of video conferencing on air travel, assumptions were necessary to
quantify and thus compare alternative strategies. Assumptions reflected actual data
sources when possible and are explicitly listed in the UMUC Climate Action Plan
Workbook, a tool developed by CIER to organize and model project benefits and costs. It
is the goal of the University to test, verify and improve these assumptions as the CAP is
implemented and as better data is acquired.
The most significant assumptions made in the Climate Action Plan relate to campus
growth. Mitigation strategies should be scaled to meet GHG emission reduction targets,
which are relative to the FY 2008 baseline, but it is unrealistic to assume emissions will
remain equal to FY 2008 in the near-term. A better assumption is that emissions will
increase in 2009 and 2010 because the University’s CAP will not have been implemented
and a new facility, the Academic Center at Largo, will have come online. Assumptions
about growth give the University a more realistic picture of the work needed to reach
neutrality. Another advantage of projecting emissions increases is to contrast the low
GHG emissions path the University plans to take against a business-as-usual, high GHG
emissions path.
The first major assumption about growth is that electricity consumption at UMUC will
increase, the result of a 1 percent annual increase in electricity demand and the addition
of 250,000 square feet of building space in 2025 and 2035 (total growth of 500,000
square feet by 2050). For the time period from 2006 to 2008, electricity consumption in
kilowatt-hours increased by 3-5 percent per year in most buildings. Also, prior to energy
efficiency measures adopted by the University, which are discussed in further detail in
Chapter 3, electricity consumption was expected to increase by 2.8 million kWh by 2010
as a result of the new Academic Center at Largo4.
4
DNC Architects, Inc. University of Maryland University College, 1616 McCormick Drive, Renovation and
Rehabilitation. Version: July 14, 2008.
13
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Figure 2.1 Alternative Emissions Scenarios at UMUC, FY 2008 to 2050
The second major set of growth assumptions relates to the University’s transportation
sector. First, vehicle miles traveled (VMT) from commuting will increase by 1.4 percent
annually as a result of adding new students, faculty members and expanding course
offerings; 1.4 percent is the projected annual increase in VMT for the State of Maryland
5
. Second, an assumption is made that air miles traveled (and financed by the University)
will increase by 1 percent annually.
The cumulative result of these growth assumptions (increasing electricity demand, and
increasing transportation) as it relates to the University’s GHG emissions is represented
in Figure 2.1. Other emissions, all of which were de minimis emissions in the FY 20072008 inventory, are assumed to remain stable in coming years. Assumptions about
constant emissions will be tested in the upcoming calendar year (CY) 2009 inventory.
Role of External Factors Including State and Federal Government Policies
As global climate change is a global problem, so too will be the solutions that mitigate
GHG emissions. Federal and state policies – currently in place and yet-to-come – will
influence how and when the University reaches carbon neutrality. The University
anticipates future emissions reductions from two such high-level policies already in
place. Maryland’s renewable portfolio standard (RPS), which requires electricity utilities
5
Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT). Maryland Climate Action Plan. Draft Maryland Department of
Transportation Implementation Status Report. Revised October 28, 2009. MPO Modeling for individual Counties in
Maryland; Average across counties equal to 1.4 percent annual increase in VMT.
14
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
to generate 20 percent of their electricity from renewable sources by 2022, is one such
policy 6. The other major policy is the U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE)
standard, which will require that the average fleet efficiency of new vehicles match 35
miles per gallon by 2020 7.
Both the RPS and the CAFE policies will facilitate the University’s goal of carbon
neutrality and the GHG reductions these policies will create are estimated in the CAP.
However, as the RPS is met, the University’s mitigation strategies will reduce fewer
emissions (MTCO2e reduced). For example, as the fuel mix of the electricity purchased
by UMUC becomes cleaner, a reduction in electricity consumption will reduce fewer
GHG emissions. In other words, a 5,000 kWh reduction in electricity consumption in
2015 will result in more MTCO2e reduced than a 5,000 kWh reduction in 2020 because
the fuel will likely become cleaner in the duration.
Additionally, there are state and federal policies not yet in place that will facilitate the
University’s goal of climate neutrality. For example, the State of Maryland currently
funds public universities for energy budgets based on past-year’s energy needs. If UMUC
reduces its energy needs through conservation and energy efficiency efforts, then budgets
for subsequent years will likely reflect that decrease in energy spending through a cut in
funding. If the energy budget remains whole for University System of Maryland (USM)
institutions, however, they will be able to reinvest those savings in additional energy
efficiency projects. The University should identify additional hurdles and opportunities to
executing the CAP, join other USM institutions, and use the combined leverage to
influence state policy-makers and participate in private ventures.
1.4 Expected Impacts
The Climate Action Plan puts forward 13 strategies to mitigate GHG emissions and
another 15 to assist mitigation efforts and expand outreach and education. In
combination, the strategies are expected to reduce GHG emissions to a net of zero by
2050 under an assumption of stable emissions. Under a scenario of growing emissions,
which is anticipated in the near-term, achieving neutrality will require more aggressive
GHG reductions relative to a low-growth or stable University. As the University receives
better information about the effectiveness of strategies and about the rate of campus
growth, strategies in the CAP will be revised and expanded upon to ensure UMUC is on
track to meet its neutrality target. In addition to reaching neutrality, UMUC will lead by
example through broad institutional policy changes intended to enable mitigation efforts,
increase educational opportunities in the environmental management field, and continue
to conduct outreach to raise awareness of its climate efforts.
6
Database of State Incentives for Renewables & Efficiency (DSIRE). Maryland Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
Available Online: http://www.dsireusa.org/incentives/incentive.cfm?Incentive_Code=MD05R&re=1&ee=1
7
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). Available
Online: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/fueleconomy.jsp
15
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Figure 2.2 below summarizes the collective impact of UMUC’s mitigation strategies if all
are successfully implemented – specific reference is made to milestone years (2012,
2015, 2020) and the neutrality year of 2050. Carbon offsets are included as the strategy of
last resort for the University, which will likely be necessary to address a portion of
transportation emissions and de minimis emissions. The estimate for offsets is tenuous at
this point in time and it is possible better alternatives emerge in the next 40 years to
facilitate mitigation efforts.
Next Steps
Next steps for the University, which are discussed in more detail in concluding segments
of each chapter and in Chapter 6, involve determining responsibility for strategy
implementation, developing funding mechanisms, and tracking progress through time.
Most strategies will be implemented beginning in 2010 or 2011, which will necessitate
expedient and effective communication of the CAP among students, faculty and staff.
The University’s next GHG inventory will be for CY 2009 and will be publically
reported in January 2011.
16
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Figure 2.2 Total GHG Emissions Reductions from all Mitigation Strategies, 2012 to 2050, Relative to the 2008 Overall Baseline (23,017 MTCO2e)
17
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
CHAPTER 2 – ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIONS
Achieving carbon neutrality requires that University faculty, staff and students buy-in to
the mission and understand their respective roles. Shifting the UMUC community
towards a climate neutrality mindset must be supported and led by the University’s
administration. The capacity of the University’s administration to create institution-level
changes that are both symbolic and substantive must be utilized. This chapter highlights
relevant practices and policies already in place at UMUC’s administrative level and putsforth additional actions designed to facilitate carbon neutrality and eventually foster a
better understanding of climate change on campus. The University will adopt eleven
administrative strategies.
2.1. Description
Administrative actions will not directly lead to GHG emissions reductions, though they
will facilitate CAP implementation and may lead to indirect emissions reductions
(including de minimis GHG reductions). Administrative actions should ease the challenge
of reducing emissions by putting into place appropriate funding and implementation
mechanisms, remove barriers to electricity and transportation GHG mitigation projects,
and generally foster awareness of climate and sustainability at the UMUC.
There are eleven administrative actions put forth in the Climate Action Plan. Many of the
administrative strategies put forth build-off of existing policies at the University (e.g.,
promotion of employee telecommuting). Other strategies cover new ground for the
University (e.g., development of a regular transportation survey for students and
employees). Several of the administrative strategies are designed specifically to reinforce
a specific mitigation or education strategy.
The criteria for evaluating administrative strategies include concerns and benefits
(qualitative analysis) and availability of implementation tools. Additionally, preliminary
research evaluated peer institutions and mechanisms in place designed to facilitate
campus sustainability and climate neutrality. A number of the administrative strategies
listed here are adopted from institutions with a strong track record of addressing and
meeting climate goals.
2.2 Background
The University’s existing environmental practices and policies, in addition to the current
management structure, serve as a strong foundation for further developing administrative
strategies that can facilitate climate neutrality. Below are highlights of the University’s
current environmental management structure, practices, and accomplishments.
18
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010

Climate and Sustainability Coordination – The Facilities Management (FM)
Department at UMUC coordinates most climate and sustainability efforts while
collaborating with other University offices as needed. Over the past decade, FM
has focused on energy efficiency improvements, water conservation measures,
waste reduction, increased recycling, composting, transportation management and
more recently, climate planning. Because of these efforts and an on-going
commitment to sustainability, UMUC became a member of the Maryland Green
Registry in 2009. The Maryland Green Registry is a voluntary, self-certification
program offering tips and resources to help organizations set and meet their own
goals on the path to sustainability 8.

Energy - An energy model has been installed at the Academic Center at Largo;
this tool will establish standard operating procedures for electricity consumption
and in turn reduce total consumption. Future plans are to renovate the Adelphi
SFSC building to include energy efficient systems and sensor lighting. The
University also saw significant reduction in energy consumption as a result of a
2001 energy performance contract with Johnson Controls Inc., which is discussed
in further detail in Chapter 3.

Water Conservation - Low flow fixtures as well as waterless urinals have been
installed at UMUC owned facilities; these and other measures have resulted
in a 43% water reduction at the UMUC Academic Center at Largo and a 34%
reduction at the Adelphi campus.

Recycling - UMUC had an overall recycling rate of 64% in 2009. Also, over 90
percent of the construction materials from the renovation of UMUC’s
Academic Center at Largo were recycled. UMUC currently composts food
waste through a contract with EnviRelation.

Buildings - The UMUC Academic Center at Largo is certified LEED Silver for
New Construction. The UMUC Hotel Addition was also LEED Certified under
the New Construction Rating System in 2005.

Transportation - UMUC offers flexible scheduling and telecommuting options
for its employees and 90 percent of students take at least one course online –
both of these factors help explain the University’s relatively low per capita
carbon footprint. The new Academic Center at Largo is accessible by
MetroRail and preferred parking is available for individuals with hybrid and
low-emission vehicles. Moreover, the University offers shuttle services
between locations and the University has a contract with UM College Park for
faculty, staff and students to use Shuttle-UM. Last, ridesharing via Commuter
Connections is endorsed by UMUC. Transportation is discussed further in
Chapter 4.
8
Maryland Green Registry. Organizations Working toward a Sustainable Maryland. Available Online:
http://www.mde.maryland.gov/MarylandGreen/memberlist.html.
19
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
2.3 Administrative Strategies
Table 2.1 Strategies by Description, Implementation Tools, Potential Benefits, and Potential Concerns
Administrative Strategies
Description
A1.
Environmentally
Preferable
Procurement Policy
Implementation
Mechanism
UMUC procurement
managers will develop
a set of guidelines for
green procurement.
Participation can be
voluntary, however,
procurement of EPA
Energy Star products
is required
Potential Benefits
Potential Concerns
- Reduces University’s
environmental impact
- Indirectly reduces GHG
emissions
- Improves employee
health (e.g., cleaning
supplies)
- Creates alternative
purchasing options and
encourages employees to
consider habits
- Premium cost for
many green goods
(e.g., 100% recycled
paper 10-20% higher
costs relative to 30%
recycled paper)
- May require
changing vendors
A2.
Low-Carbon
Constructed or
Renovated
Buildings
All newly constructed
or renovated buildings
financed by UMUC
will incorporate the
most current energy
efficiency measures
with the goal of
reducing electricity
consumption by 30%
below baseline
building consumption;
LEED certification
will be achieved
- Energy savings accrued
through building lifetime
- Reduces or offsets
GHGs associated with
campus growth
- Raises awareness
among community
members
- Challenges occupants to
monitor energy habits;
builds employee
awareness
- LEED certification
creates higher
upfront costs relative
to conventional
buildings
A3.
Low-Carbon Leased
Buildings
All future leased
building space will
meet at least LEED
Silver standards, if
available
- Energy savings accrued
through life of lease
- GHGs reductions if
utilities paid by UMUC
- Raises awareness
among community
members
- Location is first
priority in selecting a
building
- Cost premium on
leasing in LEED
buildings
20
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Description
A4. (E3)
University-wide
Adoption of Smart
Strips
Implementation
Mechanism
University employees
will be provided with
Smart Strips (e.g.,
enables quick return to
standby mode on PC);
see strategy E3
Potential Benefits
Potential Concerns
- Energy Savings
- Creates demand-side
energy savings typically
difficult to achieve
- Low cost alternative
- Cost of technology
A5. (T1)
Expand Data
Collection related to
Transportation
Administer
transportation survey
to reveal commuter
habits and attitudes for
students, employees
- Results can be used to
organize carpooling
database and facilitate
transportation mitigation
strategies
- If regular, survey can
be used to measure GHG
progress
- Cost of
administering
transportation
survey, particularly
for faculty and staff
A6. (T3)
Flexible Schedule
Options for
Employees
Create and encourage
more flex schedule
options (4 day/week; 9
day/bi-weekly) for
employees
- Business continuity and
disaster preparedness
- Employee satisfaction
and retention
- GHG reductions from
commuting and possibly,
decreased electricity
demand
- May require that
employees can
access PCs remotely
- Could limit office
camaraderie
- May require
additional
administrative costs
in HR
A7. (T4)
Telecommuting
Options for
Employees
Create and encourage
more telecommuting
options for employees;
make discount or
single-day parking
available for
telecommuters
- Business continuity and
disaster preparedness
- Employee satisfaction
and retention
- GHG reductions from
commuting and possibly,
electricity use
- May require that
employees can
access files remotely
- Limits office
camaraderie
- May require
computer to be on at
all times, increasing
energy demand
21
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Implementation
Mechanism
A8.
As UMUC vehicles
Procurement of Low are replaced (currently
Carbon Vehicles
only 9), alternatively
fueled vehicles or at a
minimum, vehicles
above the national
average fuel economy,
will be purchased
Description
Potential Benefits
Potential Concerns
- Fuel savings
- Visible demonstration
of UMUC’s climate
neutrality efforts
- GHG reduction (fleet
emissions are de
minimis)
- Reduce particulate
emissions
Increase the number of - Reduce costs associated
recycling bins on
with waste transportation
campus; organize an
- Reduces GHGs (waste
awareness campaign
de minimis)
with hotel customers
and UMUC faculty
and staff including
posters
- Cost premium on
electric vehicles/
high-efficiency
vehicles
- Must collaborate
with UMCP as
fueling station is
shared
A10.
Low-Carbon
Grounds and
Landscaping
Reduce carbonintensive maintenance
on lawns and gardens
at UMUC facilities
(e.g., increase organic
fertilizer use, limit
frequency of mowing
and leaf blowing,
create meadows)
- Requires
renegotiating
contracts for
landscaping
- Cost premium on
organic fertilizer
($20 more per
application per
10,000 square feet)
A11.
Create a Full-Time
Position of
Sustainability
Coordinator
The sustainability
coordinator will
conduct GHG
inventories, ensure
CAP implementation,
and advance other
UMUC sustainability
initiatives as well as
complete State of
Maryland reporting;
will also assist
sustainability outreach
efforts
A9.
Expand Recycling
and Composting
22
- Enhances health by
reducing noise and air
pollution
- Reduces agriculture
GHGs (De Minimis)
- Improves local water
quality
- Potential to save money
through meadow creation
and less frequent mowing
- Better coordination
among sustainability
initiatives
- Solidifies the
University’s long-term
commitment to
sustainability and climate
neutrality
- Boost student
recruitment and retention
- Improve climate
communication
throughout UMUC
- Cost of new
recycling bins and
awareness campaign
- Cost of position
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
2.3 Next Steps
The Climate Action Plan Workgroup recommends the University’s President and Vice
Presidents conduct outreach within the UMUC community to evaluate the opportunities
and hurdles related to implementing individual administrative strategies. In addition to
the goal of carbon neutrality under the ACUPCC, CAP communication should emphasize
the parallel goals of saving on energy costs, reducing commuter miles traveled, attracting
and retaining students and educating the UMUC community about climate change and
sustainability. Further, the University’s administration should identify appropriate offices
for follow-through; these offices will formulate specific plans that will function within
the constraints of the University, but also achieve the dual goals of reducing GHG
emissions and raising awareness. If any particular strategy cannot be implemented, the
University’s Assistant Vice President of the Facilities Management Department will be
prepared to justify why that policy was not met in UMUC’s next ACUPCC progress
report. All administrative actions will be implemented beginning in FY 2012 at the latest
and will be continually revised and examined for effectiveness.
23
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
CHAPTER 3 – PURCHASED ELECTRICITY MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 requires a strong focus on electricity procurement.
Emissions from electricity are a function of both the type of energy used to generate the
electricity and the amount of electricity consumed. Addressing the former requires clean,
renewable energy while the latter necessitates energy efficiency and decreasing end-use
demand. This chapter discusses relevant background and proposes seven strategies
designed to attain electricity from cleaner energy and reduce the overall amount of
electricity consumed at the University.
3.1 Description
The proposed electricity mitigation strategies will directly lead to GHG emission
reductions for the University. Electricity consumption and the costs associated with
consumption will also be directly reduced in many cases. Electricity mitigation strategies
are mostly internal in the sense that the University controls investment decisions. Internal
mitigation strategies focus on either decreasing demand or purchasing cleaner energy.
However, external factors are at play and predicted changes outside the scope of the
University’s direct control are taken into account in the CAP. In particular, the CAP
adjusts for the State’s Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS). Electricity mitigation
strategies should reduce the greatest amount of MTCO2e at the lowest cost ($/MTCO2e).
There are seven electricity mitigation strategies in the Climate Action Plan. The
mitigation strategies put forth are influenced by already completed projects at UMUC.
For example, because the University participated in an energy performance contract
(EPC) with Johnson Controls, Inc. in 2001, an additional EPC was ruled out as a
mitigation policy. Moreover, mitigation strategies include planned projects and new
projects, yet to be formally planned and financed by the University. Each strategy is
evaluated using criteria of available implementation tools, estimated annual energy
reduction, estimated annual GHG reduction, annual costs, and the net present value of
each MTCO2e reduced.
3.2 Background
In FY 2008, electricity procurement was a major source of emissions accounting for 45
percent of the University’s total emissions – 16,094,860 kWh of electricity was
purchased resulting in 9,483 MTCO2e. There was an increase of about 500,000 kWh
from FY 2007 to FY 2008. For CY 2009, total electricity demand is estimated to be about
19 million kWh or an 18 percent increase over FY 2008 (see Figure 3.1). The projected
increase is the result of the Academic Center at Largo coming online and probable
demand increases at other UMUC facilities. FY 2008 emissions from purchased natural
gas were de minimis, accounting for less than 3 percent or 866 MTCO2e. In FY 2008,
14,745 MMBtu of natural gas was purchased for the University’s steam boilers and 1,618
MMBtu for kitchen operations. GHG mitigation strategies for purchased natural gas are
not proposed in the CAP.
24
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Figure 3.1 Projected CY 2009 electricity demand (kWh)
In addition to total electricity consumed, the type of energy used to generate the
University’s electricity is an important factor in calculating emissions. In FY 2008,
UMUC received an estimated 57% of its electricity from coal, a very high carbon fuel
(see Table 3.1). UMUC has three electricity providers: 1 – Reliant Energy via the
University of Maryland, College Park provides 81% of the University’s electricity 9; 2 –
Pepco provides 16%; and 3 – Baltimore Gas & Electric provides 3%.
Table 3.1 FY 2008, weighted fuel mix for UMUC’s purchased electricity; fuels ordered by carbon content
from highest (coal) to lowest (other renewables)
Fuels
Coal
Distillate Oil
Natural Gas
Nuclear Power
Hydro
Other Renewables
Weighted Fuel Mix
57%
1%
5%
35%
1%
1%
9
UM, College Park ended its contract with Reliant Energy in June 2009 and signed a new contract with
Washington Gas Energy Services to provide electricity to the Combined Heat and Power Plant; also,
beginning in November, 2009, UMUC will have three electricity accounts with Direct Energy via UM,
College Park. Source: Personal Communication Joan Kowal and Erika Heilig, November 9, 2009 via
Email.
25
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
In 2001, Johnson Controls, Inc. and the University signed an energy service contract
(ESCO). ESCOs are a very cost-effective way to improve building energy efficiency,
reduce electricity demand, and reduce GHG emissions. Under the contract, the Inn and
Conference Center, the SFSC Building, and University Centre were upgraded with
energy efficiency measures including an installed boiler system, an energy management
system, lighting improvements, and a cooling tower treatment system.
The contract with Johnson Controls is highlighted here to emphasize the efforts the
University has taken to reduce electricity demand and to clarify the absence of ESCOs as
an electricity mitigation strategy. Because the efficiency measures and retrofits took place
between 2001 and 2003, any year-to-year electricity reductions have since been realized.
However, energy cost savings are still being accrued by the University relative to the
2001 budget. Also, the fact that these electricity reductions were realized prior to the
University’s first GHG inventory means that the baseline (FY 2008) GHG emissions are
much lower than they would have been otherwise. Completion of the ESCO also means
that a generally low-cost option for reducing GHGs at other universities and businesses is
not a viable option for UMUC. However, because the ESCO was not exhaustive in its
scope of UMUC facilities covered and retrofits installed, and because energy efficiency
technology has progressed significantly since the efficiency upgrades, a number of
specific energy efficiency projects remain viable options for the University. As discussed
below, many of these efficiency measures are currently being adopted.
3.3 Electricity Mitigation Strategies
I. Goals
The University intends to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 and demonstrate target
reductions in the first milestone year of 2012. If it is assumed that GHG reductions from
purchased electricity will be proportional to GHG reductions from transportation, then
the reduction timeline for each sector can roughly parallel the University-wide timeline
outlined in Chapter 1. It is also assumed that GHG emissions from de minimis sources
will remain constant and won’t be explicitly addressed through mitigation efforts in this
initial iteration of the CAP. To meet the University-wide emissions milestone in 2012
then, emissions reductions from electricity procurement alone should be greater than 10
percent. In other words, the University-wide target of reducing GHG emissions 10
percent below 2008 levels by 2012 means that GHG emissions from electricity should be
reduced by roughly 10-12 percent below 2008 levels by 2012. To reach this goal, the
University should emit no more than 8,440 MTCO2e from purchased electricity in 2012
(see Table 3.2).
26
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Table 3.2 Purchased Electricity Emissions Reduction Goals, 2012-2050
Electricity GHG Goals
Year
MTCO2e % Reduction
2008
2012
2015
2020
205010
9,483
8,439
7,965
6,922
0
Baseline
- 11%
- 16%
- 27%
- 100%
High Growth Scenario
MTCO2e
% Growth
9,483
11,586
11,937
12,545
21,331
Baseline
+ 22%
+ 26%
+ 33%
+ 125%
Necessary Reductions (MTCO2e)
GHG Reduction Path
High
(Marginal)
Growth
Baseline
Baseline
1,044
3,147
474
3,972
1,043
5,623
6,922
21,331
The 2012 goal of 8,439 MTCO2e translates to necessary reductions of 1,044 MTCO2e by
2012, assuming the University does not increase electricity demand and stabilizes at 2008
levels. This assumption is very unlikely. It is more realistic to assume emissions from
electricity will grow. A high-growth scenario model for the University suggests that to
reach the 2012 goal of 8,439 MTCO2e, the University needs reductions of 3,147
MTCO2e. In turn, the University has established the following goal:
 By 2012, the University will reduce emissions from purchased electricity by at
least 1,500 MTCO2e or at best, more than 3,000 MTCO2e.
II. Strategies
PART 1 – DECREASE DEMAND AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCY
E1. Employee Behavior Modification Campaign

Description – UMUC employees will be encouraged to modify their direct and
indirect electricity consumption habits. Campus-based employees will be
encouraged to reduce plug loads and turn off lights and appliances when not in
use. Managers that can feasibly switch campus operations (e.g., cleaning and
laundry) to off-peak hours (8pm-5am) will be encouraged to do so. See Table 3.3
for project financial details and projected GHG reductions.

Implementation – Tools include awareness posters, regular email reminders, and
incentives for reducing electricity consumption. For example, an ongoing
“electricity competition” could be initiated between the employees in the SFSC
building, the Inn and Conference Center, University Centre, Dorsey Station, and
the Academic Center at Largo whereby the building with the greatest monthly
decrease in electricity use receives a prize (e.g., free coffee and donuts). The
University will undertake this action beginning in 2010.
10
Future high-growth scenario emissions and reduction goals should be discounted because these forecasts
are too far in the future to know with any accuracy. However, Table 3.2 does highlight the relatively small
marginal GHG reductions necessary to keep pace with the target years compared to the large reductions
that will be necessary should the University grow rapidly and postpone GHG mitigation.
27
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
E2. Inn and Conference Center Behavior Modification Campaign

Description – An additional behavior modification strategy directed at the Inn
and Conference Center is to initiate a program of towel and linen re-use. Such
towel and linen reuse programs are common within the hospitality industry. The
Willard Hotel in Washington, D.C. puts placards in guests’ rooms describing the
hotel’s conservation initiative and gives multi-night guests the option of opting
out of daily linen and towel replacement. The UMUC Inn and Conference Center
will adopt a similar program to save energy use related to laundry. See Table 3.3
for project financial details and projected GHG reductions.

Implementation – Tools include placards for guest rooms, brochures in the
lobby, and training for all relevant Inn and Conference employees. The University
will undertake this action beginning in 2010.
E3. University-wide Adoption of Smart Strips

Description – UMUC employees will be provided Smart Strip Power Strips,
which are capable of turning appliances (i.e., computers) on/off based on
occupancy. The Smart Strips have already been adopted at the Academic Center
at Largo. Smart Strips could result in more energy savings relative to the EPA
Energy Star settings for computers, which recommend that computers enter
system standby or hibernate after 30 minutes of inactivity. 11 See Table 3.3 for
project financial details and projected GHG reductions.

Implementation – Tools include facilities management support to assist UMUC
employees with new technology. The University has begun to undertake this
action.
E4. Completed and Planned Energy Efficiency Projects

Description – In 2009, a number of energy efficiency measures were installed at
the Academic Center at Largo that are expected to bring total electricity
consumption significantly below the originally projected level 12. As these
improvements were made post-baseline year and because they required a
significant investment from the University, they warrant recognition in the CAP.
The improvements include installation of occupancy sensors, demand control
ventilation, and an energy recovery unit among other efficiency tools. In addition
to the efficiency measures at Largo, Facilities Management will replace T8 light
bulbs to more efficient, high-output T5 light bulbs in the SFSC building in CY
11
EPA Energy Star Power Management Website. There are a number of resources available online at:
http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?c=power_mgt.pr_power_management.
12
Based on two energy audits performed by DNC Archetitects. Original audit dated July 2008; most recent
audit (post efficiency improvements) dated October 2009.
28
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
2010 as well as replace the air handler units. See Table 3.3 for project financial
details and projected GHG reductions.

Implementation – Funding and implementation plans for these projects are
currently in place. Improvements at the Academic Center at Largo took place in
2009; improvements at the SFSC building will take place in 2010.
PART 2 – FUEL SWITCHING AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
E5. Purchase Renewable Energy Credits (Off-Campus Renewable Electricity)

Description – The University will purchase renewable energy credits (RECs)
designed to finance construction of new electricity generating sources from
renewable energy. The University seeks to purchase RECs that will lead to new
renewable energy generation in the State of Maryland. Purchase of RECs will be
the primary tool used to meet electricity procurement emission milestones and the
2050 goal of zero emissions from electricity procurement. See Table 3.3 for
project financial details and projected GHG reductions.

Implementation – There are a number of companies within Maryland that sell
RECs. The University will explore options in light of its long-term purchasing
goals and financial outlook. The University will undertake this action beginning in
2012 at the latest.
E6. On-Campus Solar Energy Electricity Generation

Description – The University will fund installation of at minimum a 5 kW solar
PV electricity system on location at a University facility. See Table 3.3 for project
financial details and projected GHG reductions.

Implementation – A tool currently being pursued by the University System of
Maryland (USM) and the Maryland Department of General Services (DGS) is
power purchase agreements, which will be available to all USM institutions 13. In
general, power purchase agreements solicit proposals from renewable energy
companies to install, generate, and sell electricity to a purchaser such as UMUC.
The structure is efficient because renewable energy companies can claim
Maryland tax incentives where UMUC cannot. The USM and DGS program,
known as Generating Clean Horizons, will target renewable electricity generation
within Maryland. The University will pursue this opportunity by 2013.
13
It remains to be seen if this program will facilitate on-campus renewable energy generation in addition to
off-campus generation (RECs). There will be one contract between USM and DGS on behalf of the USM
institutions; a separate contract will be negotiated between each renewable energy seller and qualifying
Riding Entity (institution). More information available online: http://www.usmd.edu/newsroom/news/788.
29
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
E7. Maryland Renewable Portfolio Standard (External)

Description – By 2022, 20 percent of the electricity purchased by UMUC will be
generated by renewable energy sources as utilities comply with the State’s
Renewable Portfolio Standard. The cleaner fuel mix will result in fewer emissions
per kWh purchased for the University. There will be no additional cost to the
University as a result of renewable standards being met. See Table 3.3 for project
financial details and projected GHG reductions.

Implementation – There are no implementation steps or costs associated with
this strategy.
30
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Table 3.3 Electricity Strategies by Energy Changes, GHG Reductions, Costs, NPV/MTCO2e, Assumptions
PART 1 – DECREASE DEMAND AND IMPROVE EFFICIENCY
Strategy
Estimated
Annual Energy
Reduction
E1 & E2. Behavior 482,846 kWh
Modification
by 2015
Potential
Annual
Emissions
Reductions
(MTCO2e)
136 MTCO2e
by 2012;
254 MTCO2e
by 2015
Potential
Annual Cost to
Campus
NPV
($/MTCO2e)
Key
Assumptions
$15,000/year in
marketing
through 2025
$76 saved per
MTCO2e
reduced through
2025
- Max. 3% decrease from
2008 electricity
consumption by 2015
- Between 2010 and 2015,
1/6 annual build-up
towards max decrease of
3%
- 800 PCs, 200 Watt
screens, in standby 10
hours/day
- 100 percent adoption by
2011
E3.
University-wide
Adoption of Smart
Strips
567,940 kWh
by 2011
320 MTCO2e
by 2012;
298 MTCO2e
by 2015
$35,600 onetime capital cost
for Smart Strips
$176 saved per
MTCO2e
reduced through
2020
E4.
UMUC Energy
Projects
438,914 kWh
by 2011
247
MTCO2e by
2012;
231 MTCO2e
by 2015
Costs already
budgeted
N/A
31
- Light bulbs on for 12
hours per day
- Completion of projects
by 2011
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
PART 2 – FUEL SWITCHING AND RENEWABLE ENERGY
Strategy
Estimated
Annual
Energy
Reduction
Potential
Annual
Emissions
Reductions
(MTCO2e)
553 MTCO2e by
2012;
1,068 MTCO2e
by 2015
Potential
Annual Cost to
Campus
NPV
($/MTCO2e)
Key
Assumptions
$6,000 by 2012;
$9,500 by 2015
$8 cost per
MTCO2e in
2012;
$7 cost per
MTCO2e from
2012-2015
- Purchase RECs equal to
5% of purchased electricity
initially in 2012; 10%
between 2015-2019
- Cost per REC decreases as
total amount purchased
increases
E5.
Purchase
Renewable Energy
Credits
None
E6.
On-Campus Solar
Energy Electricity
Generation
6,574 fewer
3 MTCO2e by
kWh
2015
purchased by
2015
$27,000 Capital
cost for project;
($48,500
Capital cost preincentives)
$134 cost per
MTCO2e
through 2038
- 5 KW system
- 25 year lifetime
- Maryland rebate of
$10,000 in tax incentives
- Federal rebate of 30 % of
post-state incentives cost
E7. Renewable
Portfolio Standard
(EXTERNAL)
None
No direct cost to
the University
(External Policy)
No direct cost
to the
University
(External
Policy)
- Utilities serving UMUC
including Pepco, BG&E and
others meet RPS
requirements
461 MTCO2e by
2012 and;
1,073 MTCO2e
by 2015
32
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
3.4 Expected Impacts
The potential GHG reductions resulting from the combined electricity mitigation
strategies appear in Table 3.4. Under the current assumptions and a stable emissions
scenario, all mitigation strategies will result in a reduction of about 1,700 MTCO 2e by
2012 or an 18 percent reduction below the 2008 baseline. GHG emissions from UMUC’s
purchased electricity will be equal to zero (e.g., net neutral) by 2050. This will be
accomplished through the purchase of additional RECs or other policies, depending on
project economics as the neutrality date is approached.
Table 3.4 GHG Emissions Reductions as Percentage of Two Scenarios (Stable and Growth)
Year
2012
2015
2020
2050
Stable Scenario
16% below 2008 levels
30% below 2008 levels
56% below 2008 levels
100% below 2008 levels
Growth Scenario
4% above 2008 levels
5% below 2008 levels
24% below 2008 levels
100% below 2008 levels
A graphical representation of the combined electricity procurement strategies relative to
the FY 2008 baseline appears in Figure 3.2. Again, neutrality will be achieved by 2050
through purchase of RECs or other viable options, which should become evident as the
neutrality target year nears.
33
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Figure 3.2 GHG Emissions Reductions from Electricity Procurement, 2012 to 2050, Relative to the 2008 Elect. Baseline (9,483 MTCO2e)
34
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
3.5 Next Steps
The Climate Action Plan Workgroup recommends that the Facilities Management
Department evaluate opportunities and hurdles related to individual electricity
procurement strategies and determine how to best execute each strategy. All policies,
with the exception of policies E5 and E6, renewable energy credits (RECs) and oncampus solar energy electricity generation, respectively, should be commenced in 2010.
On-campus solar energy electricity generation should be commenced by 2013 and RECs
by 2012 at the latest. If any particular policy or strategy can not be implemented or
implemented in a way outlined by the above assumptions and conditions, the Facilities
Management Department will be prepared to justify why that policy was not met in
UMUC’s next ACUPCC progress report. Following adoption and public submital of the
University’s Climate Action Plan, officials should begin marketing the various electricty
procurement mitigation steps to employees and students.
Supplemental Note
The price of electricity is dependent upon a number of factors ranging from fuel supplies
and regional climate to technology advances. In general, the University anticipates
greater energy savings from efficiency projects when electricity prices are high.
Likewise, it is the preferred option to invest in efficiency projects via energy savings
when electricity prices are low. However, financing the University energy budget and
prospective energy efficiency projects is complicated. Financing for the University’s
energy budget comes from the State of Maryland via an annual University-wide budget
request. Past years energy needs are typically used to reflect future years budgets.
Because of savings from energy efficiency improvement projects though, the State is
liable to decrease the University’s energy budget in turn depriving the University of
energy savings that could be invested in additional efficiency projects.
35
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
CHAPTER 4 – TRANSPORTATION MITIGATION STRATEGIES
Reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 requires a strong focus on the University’s
transportation emissions. Significant emissions within the University’s transportation
sector come from regular employee and student commuting as well as Universityfinanced air travel. Addressing these two components of UMUC’s carbon footprint
requires taking several targeted actions, many of which will be supported by already
existing policies in the University. However, because the University indirectly controls
emissions from regular commuting and air travel, neutrality cannot be easily achieved
through internal policies alone – assistance from federal and state policies will be needed.
This chapter discusses relevant background and proposes eight strategies designed to
reduce emissions from commuting and University-financed air travel.
4.1 Description
The proposed transportation mitigation strategies will directly lead to GHG emission
reductions for the University. However, because of the lack of specific data on UMUC
commuting indicators and because initial calculations of commuter GHGs were based
largely on assumptions that remain to be tested, quantifying the impact of these strategies
will be difficult. Progress under transportation strategies will be evident over the longterm as new data collecting and monitoring mechanisms are put into place. In many
instances, commuting indicators will improve with strategy implementation including
total vehicle miles traveled (VMTs), gasoline consumed, mode split of the University
(i.e., proportion of individuals traveling by single occupancy vehicles (SOVs) vs. public
transportation), and the total cost of financed air travel. At this point, the most functional
units to analyze GHG emissions by are VMTs and air miles traveled. There are eight
transportation strategies put forth in the Climate Action Plan.
Multiple factors dictate emissions from commuting, most of which the University can
more or less internally influence. Also, the University claims transportation GHG
emissions reductions from one external policy – the CAP adjusts for expected fuel
efficiency gains in campus commuting via the U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency
(CAFE) standards. Like the electricity procurement mitigation strategies discussed in
Chapter 3, transportation mitigation strategies ideally reduce the greatest amount of
MTCO2e at the lowest cost ($/MTCO2e). There are eight transportation mitigation
strategies. The strategies are evaluated using the criteria of available implementation
tools, estimated change in transportation indicator (e.g., VMTs), estimated annual GHG
reduction, annual costs, and the net present value of each MTCO2e reduced.
36
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Commuting
Mitigation strategies targeting commuter emissions focus on four factors, which
collectively determine emission levels. These four factors are:
1. Distance Traveled – Where UMUC students and employees commute from and
to.
2. Frequency of Travel – How often UMUC students and employees are commuting
for UMUC-related functions.
3. Mode of Travel – How UMUC students and employees are commuting (e.g., SOV
vs. public transportation).
4. Mode Efficiency – The efficiency or carbon-intensity of the modes being chosen
by UMUC students and employees (e.g., MPG for vehicles).
The University has some degree of influence over each of the abovementioned factors.
For example, the University can offer face-to-face classes in high population areas
(Distance), minimize the frequency of class travel by offering hybrid and online courses
(Frequency), lease offices and classroom space in locations with access to public
transportation (Mode), and encourage its employees to purchase or drive more efficient
vehicles, possibly through green parking incentives (Efficiency). More discussion of these
mitigation opportunities follows in this Chapter.
Another factor, which the University has a great amount of control over, is its student and
employee population size and the rate at which these populations are expected to grow in
the coming 40 years. Because the State of Maryland is expected to grow, as is demand for
high quality educational opportunities, any reduction on the University’s growth rate
would be unwise from a business and social perspective. However, it should be
recognized that as more students and employees enroll in the University, the University’s
carbon footprint, particularly from commuting, would likely increase. Additionally, the
larger the growth rate at the University, the more transportation mitigation policies will
have to compensate to reach GHG reduction goals. For example, UMUC may be
successful in shifting a large portion of its population away from single occupancy
vehicle commuting and towards public transportation commuting, but if the University
population explodes during the same time period, the reduction in GHGs from the mode
shift could be negated by the boost in population size.
The external factors that impact UMUC’s commuter GHG emissions are numerous. A
non-exhaustive list includes the price of gasoline, the national average fuel efficiency,
availability of public transportation including physical infrastructure (e.g., Purple Line)
and more frequent operation, development in Maryland and a multitude of other socioeconomic factors. For the purpose of simplification, analysis of external factors will be
limited to the national average fuel efficiency, which will improve under new U.S. CAFE
standards.
37
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Air Travel
The frequency of faculty and staff air travel is a major contributor to University’s carbon
footprint. However, there is a conflict between this driver of GHG emissions and highpriority institutional goals; namely, the need for faculty and staff to travel to teach,
present, share, and learn with others. There are actions the University can take to mitigate
emissions from air travel. These actions focus on the distinction between necessary air
travel and non-essential air travel. Analysis of air travel emissions does not consider
external factors outside of the University’s control.
4.2 Background
The University’s single largest source of emissions is from commuting by employees and
students. In FY 2008, 10,379 MTCO2e or roughly 50 percent of UMUC’s total emissions
came from regular, daily commuting. Students commuted an estimated 13,364,386 miles
in FY 2008 – a decrease of almost 2 million miles from FY 2007. Faculty and staff
commuted 12,339,950 miles – a decrease of 400,000 miles from FY 2007. Assuming that
all commuting was done in single occupancy vehicles, and applying an average fuel
economy of 22.1 miles per gallon (MPG), students consumed an estimated 604,723
gallons of gas while employees consumed 558,368 gallons of gas to attend UMUCrelated activities including classes, tests, and work. In addition to commuting, air travel is
a significant portion of GHG emissions, comprising 5 percent or 1,037 MTCO 2e in FY
2008. A notable finding from the FY 2007-2008 GHG inventory was that emissions from
air travel increased by 250 percent from FY 2007 to FY 2008 because the University
lifted limitations on employee air travel. In FY 2008, 1,336,105 miles were flown for
University purposes. FY 2008 emissions from fleet travel and University-reimbursed
travel were de minimis, accounting for 4.5 percent of total emissions or 1,049 MTCO2e.
In 2008, the University purchased an estimated 1,342 and 10,912 gallons of gas for the
University fleet and reimbursed travel, respectively. GHG mitigation strategies for fleetbased emissions and reimbursed travel are not included in the Climate Action Plan. See
Figure 4.1 for a breakout of transportation related GHG emissions in FY 2008.
38
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Figure 4.1 University GHG Emissions (MTCO2e) from Transportation, in FY 2008
Commuting
Distance
Under the current methodology for estimating commuter GHG emissions, the distance of
commutes by students and employees, for which there is actual data, is the most
significant factor (see Table 4.1). In FY 2008, UMUC students in the Washington, DC
Metropolitan area and Maryland commuted to class locations in 21 different ZIP codes.
Reasonable student home ZIP codes registered with the University were scattered
throughout Maryland, Virginia, Washington, D.C., Delaware, West Virginia and
Pennsylvania. Because UMUC offers classes in multiple locations, students do not have
to commute as far as they otherwise would. However, because classes aren’t offered in all
locations at all times, it is very likely students commute additional miles to match their
schedules and the University’s class offerings. A better understanding of student
commute habits could be used to optimize class locations and class times and thus reduce
GHG emissions from commuting.
Most students enrolling in face-to-face or hybrid courses are commuting from 20 miles or
closer of their class location. Only 4 percent of the total trips taken by face-to-face and
hybrid students came from between 40 and 60 miles. Even with long-distance commutes,
it is very likely students weren’t commuting from home, but rather from work, which
could be closer to the class location than 40 miles. In FY 2009, 75 percent of
39
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
undergraduate students at UMUC were employed full time 14. See Figure 4.2 for a
visualization of UMUC student commuting by distance.
Figure 4.2 The Percentage of Trips Made, by Distance, FY 2008
The University’s faculty and staff are commuting from throughout the Maryland-District
of Columbia-Virginia area. Similar to the dispersed classroom locations, there are a
number of locations where employees are stationed. Beginning in Fall 2009, the
Academic Center at Largo became a major new facility holding a significant number of
employees. This will shift the commute distance for a number of employees and should
have an impact on the CY 2009 GHG inventory. In FY 2008, the mean commute distance
for staff was 28 miles; the average commute distance for faculty was 27 miles. Figure 4.3
spatially demonstrates where Adelphi-based employees were commuting from in FY
2008.
14
UMUC Office of Institutional Planning, Research and Accountability. University of Maryland
University College. FY 2009 World Factbook. Available online at: http://www.umuc.edu/ip/factbook.shtml.
40
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Figure 4.3. Density Map of Full-time Staff Based at Adelphi, FY 2008 Home ZIP codes
Legend
30-40+ Employees
20-30 Employees
10-20 Employees
4-10 Employees
41
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Frequency
For face-to-face and hybrid students, in FY 2008, an average of 71 roundtrips were made
for each unique ZIP-to-ZIP trip. Table 4.1 highlights which ZIP-to-ZIP trips had the
highest number of roundtrips. A high number of roundtrips indicates one of four things:
1- that a large number of students make that particular commute, 2- that the destination
ZIP offers a large number of classes, 3- that the classes meet frequently, and/or 4- that the
origin ZIP is home to several students. Targeting policies towards students that commute
particular ZIP-to-ZIP trips that occur at a high frequency will be an efficient way to
reduce commuter GHG emissions.
Table 4.1 Six Most Common Trips By Ranking of Roundtrip Frequency and Corresponding Indicators
Origin
(ZIP)
Destination
(ZIP)
Frequency
Rank
Distance of
Trip (Miles)
VMT
(Miles/Yr)
MTCO2e
Per Year
116,400
Gas
Consumed
(Gallons/Yr)
5,267
20904
20742
1
8.56
20906
20742
2
12.00
129,090
5,841
52
20774
20742
3
14.07
141,889
6,420
57
20740
20742
4
1.66
18,082
818
7
20782
20742
5
3.26
26,697
1,208
11
20772
20742
6
23.72
180,379
8,161
73
47
Table 4.1 highlights the fact that emissions are disproportionately influenced by distance
relative to frequency, but the table fails to highlight the fact that a trip not taken is the
best option for reducing GHG emissions. This point emphasizes UMUC’s specialization
in distance education, which is a major boon in terms of minimizing environmental
impact. In calculating GHG emissions from online student commuting, which only
includes undergraduate students traveling for exams, there are many fewer trips per
student15. At least 94 percent of the University’s Stateside student population was
enrolled in one online course in FY 2009 16.
UMUC also offers a telecommuting option for its employees. In FY 2008, roughly 7
percent of the full-time, Adelphi-based employees telecommuted to work; for carbon
accounting purposes, the commuter footprint from these individuals is equal to zero.
Additionally, for a number of adjunct faculty members, the University does not require
their presence on a regular basis at any UMUC facility. Instead, these adjunct faculty
members, who are most often serving in some teaching capacity, need only commute for
15
It was assumed in the first GHG Inventory that all online undergraduate students commuting for exams
traveled the median of all traveling (face-to-face and hybrid class) students ~ roughly 21 miles.
16
UMUC Office of Institutional Planning, Research and Accountability. University of Maryland
University College. FY 2009 World Factbook. Available online at: http://www.umuc.edu/ip/factbook.shtml.
42
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
lectures or special UMUC events. The Human Resources Office at UMUC is currently
rewriting their flexible scheduling policy17.
Mode Split and Efficiency
Under the FY 2007-2008 GHG inventory, it was assumed that all employees and students
commuted in SOVs. Furthermore, it was assumed that all vehicles had the national
average fuel efficiency of 22.1 miles per gallon (MPG). It is likely that neither of these
assumptions were accurate portrayals of commuting at UMUC, but both were necessary
for the purpose of gauging commuter GHG emissions. As the University progresses
towards meeting its inventory goals and improving tracking mechanisms there should be
new methods to validate and improve upon these assumptions.
Based on a couple of insights, the commuter assumptions made for the FY 2008
inventory can be evaluated. First, numerous anecdotes indicate that UMUC students and
employees take advantage of regional public transportation including MARC, Metrobus,
Metrorail and Shuttle-UM. Second, a 2009 parking permit count at the University, which
serves as an indicator for SOV commuters, totaled 1,00418. Total commuters under the
FY 2007-2008 GHG inventory, which were all assumed to drive SOVs, was much larger
at around 1,700 individuals. This information reveals a potential over-estimate of total
commuters or demonstrates that the assumption of 100 percent SOV commuting is off
base. Either way, the University’s actual commuter emissions are probably lower that the
FY 2007-2008 GHG inventory estimate indicated.
With the addition of the Academic Center at Largo to the University’s facilities,
commuting from Washington, D.C. to Academic Centre at Largo via the Metrorail’s Blue
line will be an increasingly attractive option. Ridesharing through Commuter
Connections is also a popular option for employees. Further, UMUC currently has a
contract with a shuttle-bus operator to take employees between UMUC facilities for
special events. Although cross-facility travel doesn’t count as commuting for GHG
accounting purposes, the fact that this option is available very likely deters individuals
from driving to campus daily.
In terms of fuel efficiency, it is very likely that UMUC employees and students drive
vehicles more efficient than the national average vehicle efficiency. The national average
efficiency is weighed down by older cars – based on a preliminary survey at College Park
and anecdotal evidence, cars in the DC metro area are newer and in general, more
efficient.
17
18
Personal Communication with Suzanne Scott Ferguson. Telephone on October 30, 2009.
Personal Communication with Cora-Lee Gilbert Catron. Email on October 23, 2009.
43
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Air Travel
Because of the University’s international operations, faculty and staff frequently travel
abroad. The University’s air travel policy is designed to avoid wasteful expenditures on
travel. For example, when interviewing job candidates for high-level positions, only a
select group of individuals are usually flown in for in-person, final interviews. In light of
GHG emissions from air travel, the University will increasingly look for opportunities to
eliminate unnecessary travel.
4.3 Transportation Mitigation Strategies
I. Goals
The University intends to reach carbon neutrality by 2050 and demonstrate target
reductions in the first milestone year of 2012. If it is assumed that GHG reductions from
transportation will be proportional to GHG reductions from electricity procurement, then
the reduction timeline for each sector can roughly parallel the University-wide timeline
outlined in Chapter 1. It is also assumed that GHG emissions from de minimis sources
will remain constant and won’t be explicitly addressed through mitigation efforts in this
initial iteration of the CAP. To meet the University-wide emissions milestone in 2012
then, emissions reductions from the transportation sector alone should be greater than 10
percent. In other words, the University-wide target of reducing GHG emissions 10
percent below 2008 levels by 2012 means that GHG emissions from electricity should be
reduced by roughly 10-12 percent below 2008 levels by 2012. To reach this goal, the
University should emit no more than 10,161 MTCO2e from commuting and air travel in
2012 (see Table 4.2).
Table 4.2 Transportation Emissions Reduction Goals, 2012-2050
Transportation GHG Goals
Year
MTCO2e % Reduction
2008
2012
2015
2020
205019
11,417
10,161
9,590
8,334
0
Baseline
- 11%
- 16%
- 27%
- 100%
High Growth Scenario
MTCO2e
% Growth
11,417
12,052
12,552
13,432
20,186
Baseline
+ 6%
+ 10%
+ 17%
+ 77%
Necessary Reductions (MTCO2e)
GHG Reduction Path
High
(Marginal)
Growth
Baseline
Baseline
1,256
1,891
571
2,962
1,256
5,098
8,334
20,186
The 2012 goal of 10,161 MTCO2e translates to necessary reductions of 1,256 MTCO2e
by 2012, assuming the University does not increase transportation GHGs and stabilizes at
2008 levels. This is equivalent to a reduction of about 3.1 million commuter VMT or
19
Future high-growth scenario emissions and reduction goals should be discounted, as these forecasts are too far in the
future to know with any certainty. However, Table 4.2 does highlight the relatively small marginal GHG reductions
necessary to keep pace with the target years compared to the large reductions that will be necessary should the
University grow rapidly and postpone GHG mitigation.
44
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
140,700 gallons of gas. Alternatively, this is equal to 329 thousand fewer air miles
traveled and 2.4 million fewer VMT. The assumption of stable emissions is very unlikely.
It is more realistic to assume emissions from transportation will grow in the short-term. A
high-growth scenario model for the University suggests that to reach the 2012 goal of
10,161 MTCO2e, the University needs reductions of 1,891 MTCO2e. This is equivalent to
a reduction of about 4.6 million commuter VMT or 211,900 gallons of gas. Alternatively,
this is equal to 1.1 million fewer air miles traveled and 2.4 million fewer VMT. In turn,
the University has established the following goal:
 By 2012, the University will reduce emissions from commuting by at least 1,300
MTCO2e or at best, more than 1,800 MTCO2e.
II. Transportation Mitigation Strategies
T1. & A5. Initiate a Regular, University-wide Transportation Survey

Description – The University will organize and conduct a University-wide
transportation survey. The survey will be conducted at regular intervals (e.g.,
biennial) and ask consistent questions. There are no expected GHG emission
reductions expected to result directly from this survey. However, better
understanding the transportation dynamics at the University is a critical first step
towards reducing emissions from commuting and improving the overall
transportation sector at UMUC.

Implementation – The University conducts an annual web-based survey for
students; additionally, employees must complete a regular survey through HR.
The data collected through these surveys will be used to evaluate the
transportation strategies below. The University will undertake this action
beginning in 2010.
T2. Optimizing Classroom Locations and Class Meetings

Description – With information from the University’s transportation survey in
addition to institutional data on class enrollments and class locations, the
University will evaluate how to best match student needs (course requirements,
willingness to commit time to class) with University constraints (where classes
are offered, when faculty are available). UMUC will minimize the distance and
frequency at which students have to travel to attend classes and exams through
this exercise. Also, the University may be able to optimize access to public
transportation for its students. For example, a bulk of UMUC students are
professionals working in urban areas including Washington, D.C. Assuming
students prefer to take classes after work, but before they commute home, offering
more classes in Washington, D.C., or in close proximity to it, will likely reduce
how far students commute for class meetings and increase the likelihood of public
transportation being used. The potential impact from this policy is listed in Table
4.3.
45
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010

Implementation – The University will couple transportation survey data with
institutional data and evaluate opportunities and challenges for shifting class
locations and times to minimize VMTs and maximize low-carbon, alternative
transportation options. The transportation survey should include questions directly
addressing student preferences regarding travel and class location. The University
will undertake this action beginning in 2011.
T3. Expand and Encourage Flexible Schedule Options for Employees

Description – The University will expand and encourage flexible schedule
options for employees. Allowing employees and their supervisor’s to agree on a
condensed work week will lead to less campus-based commuting in addition to
other benefits, including increasing employee satisfaction. The potential impacts
from this policy are listed in Table 4.3.

Implementation – The University’s Human Resources Office will notify faculty
and staff about flexible schedule options. The Human Resources Office will
market flexible scheduling options and emphasize the environmental benefits of
reducing commuting in addition to the other benefits. The University will
undertake this action beginning in 2010.
T4. Expand and Encourage Telecommuting Options for Employees

Description – The University will expand and encourage telecommuting options
for its’ employees. The University has a number of employees currently taking
advantage of the telecommuting options, but has potential to expand. Allowing
employees and their supervisors to agree on a telecommuting arrangement will
lead to less campus-based commuting in addition to other benefits, including
increasing employee satisfaction. The potential impacts from this policy are listed
in Table 4.3.

Implementation – The University’s Human Resources Office will notify faculty
and staff about the available telecommuting options at the University. The HR
office will market telecommuting options and emphasize the environmental
benefits of reducing commuting in addition to the other benefits. The University
will undertake this action beginning in 2010.
T5. Expand and Encourage Ridesharing

Description – The University will more actively encourage ridesharing for both
its employees and students. Ridesharing, which includes both carpooling and
vanpooling, will reduce GHG emissions and VMTs; ridesharing will also make
for a more relaxing and economical commute for employees. The potential
impacts from this policy are listed in Table 4.3.
46
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010

Implementation – Carpooling to University facilities via the Commuter
Connections rideshare bulletin board is popular among UMUC employees.
Through a marketing effort encouraging more ride sharing, the University can
persuade more employees and students to carpool. The University will also
facilitate more ridesharing to campus via investment in a ride sharing matching
software program. UMUC will look to partner with nearby organizations (UMCollege Park) to expand the pool for ride sharing. The University will undertake
this action beginning in 2013.
T6. U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards (External)

Description – The U.S. Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standard,
which must equal 35 miles per gallon (MPG) by 2020, will make the University’s
commuter fleet more efficient 20. The GHG reductions from this national policy
will not create a direct cost for UMUC. Additionally, the University will explore
expanding a policy that encourages its employees and students to consider fuel
efficiency when purchasing a vehicle or driving to campus. A potential method of
encouraging fuel efficiency, which is currently in-place, is to offer preferred
parking to employees with high-efficiency vehicles. The potential impacts from
this external policy are listed in Table 4.3.

Implementation – The University will track average fuel efficiency of UMUC
commuters via the University’s Transportation Survey.
T7. Install and Encourage Use of Videoconferencing Facilities

Description – The University will install videoconferencing technology oncampus; the conferencing facilities will be promoted as an alternative to air travel.
UMUC’s international presence, which includes offices in Europe and Asia,
necessitates long-distance travel for in-person meetings; effective and feasible
alternatives to international air travel are likely to be welcomed by many
employees. Creating clear guidelines for University-financed air travel and
offering a low-cost alternative, will reduce the University’s GHG emissions from
air travel. The potential impacts from this external policy are listed in Table 4.3.

Implementation – The University has 4 conferencing facilities with plans for 2
more in the near-term. The University will undertake this action beginning in
2010.
20
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE). Available
Online: http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/portal/fueleconomy.jsp
47
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
T8. Purchase Carbon Offsets for University Air Travel and Commuting

Description – The University will explore purchasing carbon offsets. UMUC is
hesitant to go the route of purchasing offsets, as the University’s preference is to
first take tangible GHG mitigation actions that directly benefit students,
employees, and the State of Maryland. However, as UMUC intends to seize other
low-cost mitigation opportunities prior to the neutrality year of 2050 and
recognizing that these actions alone will probably not lead to climate neutrality,
the least cost option will likely be to purchase of carbon offsets.

Implementation – The University will explore purchasing carbon offsets as it
approaches the target year of 2050. Criteria for purchasing offsets are that 1offsets must be credible and validated by a certified entity, and 2- the University
will seek to invest in offsets that will benefit Maryland directly. The University
will pursue this option as necessary.
48
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Table 4.3 Transportation Strategies, By Indicator Reduction, GHG Reductions, Costs, NPV/MTCO2e, Assumptions
TRANSPORTATION STRATEGIES
T2.
Optimizing
Classroom
Locations
266,000 VMT
by 2012;
655,000 VMT
by 2015
Potential
Annual
Emissions
Reductions
(MTCO2e)
107 MTCO2e
by 2012;
265 MTCO2e
by 2015
T3. & T4.
Telecommuting
and Flex
Schedules
302,500 VMT
by 2012;
529,400 VMT
by 2015
122 MTCO2e
by 2012;
214 MTCO2e
by 2015
Strategy
Indicator
Reduction
Potential
Annual Cost
to Campus
NPV ($/MTCO2e)
Key
Assumptions
$25,000/year in
staff time
$64 cost per
MTCO2e reduced
through 2022
- Beginning year of 2011
- 1 percent decrease in VMT
per year until 2022
- Impacts student commuting
only
$30,000/year in
staff and
maintenance
time;
$5,000/year in
marketing
$121 cost per
MTCO2e reduced
through 2022
- 5 additional tele (non)
commuters per year
- 10 additional commuters
shift to 4-day/week per year
- Impacts employee
commuting only
- Average one-way commute
of 27.5 miles
49
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Strategy
Indicator
Reduction
T5.
Expand
Ridesharing
480,000 VMT
by 2015;
21,000 gallons
of gasoline by
2015
T6.
U.S. Corporate
Average Fuel
Economy
Standards
41,087 gallons
of gasoline by
2012; 73,133
gallons of
gasoline by
2015
103,700 air
miles traveled
by 2012,
$20,000 in air
travel expenses
by 2012
N/A
T7.
Use of Videoconferencing
Rooms
T8.
Purchase
Carbon Offsets
Potential
Annual
Emissions
Reductions
(MTCO2e)
194 MTCO2e
by 2015
Potential
Annual Cost
to Campus
Key
Assumptions
NPV ($/MTCO2e)
$64 cost per
MTCO2e reduced
through 2022
- Beginning year of 2013
- Impacts students and
employees
- 7 employees shift to
ridesharing/year
- 15 students shift to
ridesharing/year
367 MTCO2e
by 2012;
653 MTC
MTCO2e by
2015
$20,000/year in
staff time;
$10,000/year in
marketing;
$10,000/year in
ride-share
matching
software
No direct cost
to the
University
(External
Policy)
No direct cost to the
University (External
Policy)
- Beginning year of 2009
- 2008 average efficiency at
UMUC = 22.1 MPG
- .19 increase/year in MPG
average to 2050
81 MTCO2e by
2012;
137 MTCO2e
by 2015
$25,000/year in
staff time;
$5,000/year in
marketing
$12 saved per
MTCO2e reduced
through 2025
- 2 percent annual reduction
in air miles traveled
- Reductions begin in 2010
- $.20 saved per air mile
reduced
5,000 – 15,000
MTCO2e by
2050
TBD
TBD
N/A
50
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
4.4 Expected Impacts
The potential GHG reductions resulting from the combined transportation strategies
appear in Table 4.4. It is assumed that GHG emissions from UMUC’s transportation
sector will be equal to zero (e.g., net neutral) by 2050. This will be accomplished through
purchase of carbon offsets or other policies, depending on project economics as the
neutrality date is approached.
Table 4.4 Transportation GHG Emissions Reductions as Percentage of Two Scenarios (Stable and Growth)
Year
2012
2015
2020
2050
Baseline Scenario
6% below 2008 levels
12% below 2008 levels
23% below 2008 levels
100% below 2008 levels
Growth Scenario
<1% below 2008
3% below 2008
7% below 2008
100% below 2008
A graphical representation of the combined transportation mitigation strategies appears in
Figure 4.4. Neutrality will be achieved by 2050 through purchase of carbon offsets or
other viable options, which will become apparent as the neutrality target date approaches.
51
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
Figure 4.4 GHG Emissions Reductions from Transportation, 2012 to 2050, Relative to the 2008 Trans. Baseline (11,417 MTCO2e)
52
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
4.5 Next Steps
The Climate Action Plan Workgroup recommends that responsibility of transportation
mitigation policies be shared between the Office of Institutional Planning, Research and
Accountability and the Office of Human Resources, with guidance from the Facilities
Management Department. These offices should evaluate opportunities and hurdles related
to individual transportation mitigation strategies and determine how to best execute each
strategy. All policies, with the exception of policy T2 and T5, Class Location
Optimization and Increased Ridesharing, respectively, should be commenced in CY
2010. Class Location Optimization should be pursued beginning in CY 2011 while
Increased Ridesharing for students and employees should be pursued beginning in CY
2013. If any particular policy or strategy can not be implemented or implemented in a
way outlined by the above assumptions and conditions, the responsible offices will be
prepared to justify why that policy was not met in UMUC’s next ACUPCC progress
report. Following adoption and public submission of the University’s Climate Action
Plan, University officials should begin marketing the various transportation mitigation
steps to students and employees.
53
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
CHAPTER 5 – EDUCATION AND OUTREACH
Reaching carbon neutrality by 2050 will require a number of mitigation strategies as
highlighted in the previous chapters. However, to fully meet the commitment of carbon
neutrality, the University must also take advantage of its position as an educator and
agent of personal and societal improvement to advance climate awareness. Outreach and
education in the fields of sustainability and climate are high priorities for the University.
Communication of the University’s goals and accomplishments must involve the State of
Maryland, peer institutions, and prospective students and employees. Similarly,
communication must be a priority within the UMUC community as current students,
faculty, staff and alumni are all critical to meeting the climate neutrality goals. Education,
the University’s core mission, will continue to integrate skills and knowledge into the
curriculum to better prepare today’s workforce to resolve environmental problems. The
University at-large will be greatly assisted as community members buy into the neutrality
commitment and as individuals come to recognize their stake. Perhaps more importantly,
the University will have a long-lasting legacy, beyond the neutrality date, through its
alumni and employee network and the lessons learned and carried into the future. This
chapter discusses relevant background in education, outreach, and research and offers
four strategies for increasing awareness of climate change.
5.1 Description
The education and outreach strategies will not directly lead to GHG emissions reductions
for the University. These actions will instead play a critical role in expanding efforts
towards achievement of climate neutrality through education and outreach, and to a lesser
degree, research. Ensuring that the University’s curriculum continues to address issues of
climate change, building community awareness of and buy-in for the neutrality
commitment, and fostering opportunities for employee and student input are intended
results of the strategies discussed in this chapter. Mitigation goals, such as shifting
regular commuting to cleaner modes, should be aided as awareness of climate neutrality
goals spreads among students and employees.
There are four education and outreach strategies put forth in the Climate Action Plan.
Most of the strategies put forth build-off of existing programs at the University (e.g.,
Environmental Management Program). Other strategies cover new ground for the
University and seek to introduce climate and sustainability awareness into new areas of
the University (e.g., the UMUC Website). There is overlap between a number of
education and outreach strategies and strategies mentioned in previous chapters. Of
particular relevance for this chapter is the identified need to hire a full-time Sustainability
Coordinator. A Sustainability Coordinator at the University will be instrumental in
providing the technical climate and sustainability knowledge necessary to support the
University’s educational, marketing, and outreach efforts.
54
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
5.2 Background
The University has been active on all fronts of education, outreach and research as it
pertains to climate and sustainability. The progress to-date serves as a foundation for
further expanding awareness efforts. Notable accomplishments are discussed below.

Education - The Environmental Management Program is the flagship program at
the University specializing in environmental science, management and policy.
o The Environmental Management Program is growing at UMUC with
undergraduate and graduate, degree and certificate components.
o Among the classes offered are Environmental Regulations and Policy,
Environmental Auditing, and Environmental Communication and
Reporting.

Outreach - In addition to its status as a signatory of the American Colleges and
Universities President’s Climate Commitment, UMUC is a member of the
Maryland Green Registry 21.

Outreach - The Inn and Conference Center Hotel addition, which was completed
in 2005, is LEED certified. The University proudly advertises this
accomplishment on its website, in the hotel lobby and in the Inn and Conference
Center main corridor.

Outreach - At the University’s most recent Employee Wellness Fair, hosted by
the Human Resources Office, information was available on the University’s
progress towards climate neutrality and adoption of sustainable practices. This
was an important opportunity for the University to promote its campus climate
activities and to broadly share information with employees on environmental
objectives.

Research/Outreach - The Inn and Conference Center regularly hosts events
relevant to the fields of climate science and management. Of particular value for
the University community was the opportunity to hold the Smart and Sustainable
Campuses Conference in April 2009 22. Among the sponsors of the event were the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and the Association for the Advancement
of Sustainability in Higher Education.

Research - UMUC is a non-research institution. Nonetheless, through its
relationship with the Center for Integrative Environmental Research (CIER) at the
University of Maryland, College Park and willingness to share institutional data,
21
Maryland Green Registry. Organizations Working toward a Sustainable Maryland. Available Online:
http://www.mde.maryland.gov/MarylandGreen/memberlist.html.
22
Campus Environmental Resource Center for Higher Education. More Information Available Online at:
http://www.campuserc.org/news/events/Pages/Smart%20and%20Sustainable%20Campus%20Conference.a
spx.
55
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
UMUC has advanced climate research. For example, researchers at CIER
presented a paper at the Air and Waste Management Association’s conference
Harmonizing Greenhouse Gas Assessment and Reporting, which highlighted
methodologies for estimating GHG emissions from commuters. The researchers
emphasized UMUC’s distance-education model as one with relatively low
commuter GHG emissions.
5.3 Education and Outreach (E&O) Strategies
E&O.1 Expand Course Offerings in Environmental Management Program

Description –The University expects to grow and evolve the Environmental
Management Program as students and employers – in the private and public
sectors alike – demand new skills and knowledge capable of facilitating climate
and sustainability progress. Climate-focused content will be appropriately added
to the Environmental Management Program as the program grows.

Implementation – The University’s Provost will prepare for growth in the
environmental management field through recruitment of high-caliber faculty
members and a focused expansion of course offerings. Additionally, the Office of
the Provost will establish goals for the Environmental Management Program (e.g.,
number of students, number of courses, course satisfaction) by which to measure
growth. This strategy will be implemented immediately; costs associated with this
strategy include additional faculty members and program marketing.
E&O.2 Incorporate Sustainability Awareness into Student and Employee Orientations

Description – New UMUC students, faculty and staff are exposed to a wide range
of information including the University’s policies on diversity and academic
integrity. Likewise, sustainability and climate neutrality warrant attention during
the orientation process. Establishing the issue of climate neutrality as a University
priority will assist mitigation efforts and result in the cascading of a
“sustainability mindset” throughout the University community.

Implementation – The University will establish sustainability and climate
education as a priority for new students and employees. This will occur by
expressly including sustainability priorities in the paper/online content provided
for new student/employee orientations. This strategy will be implemented within
two years, as the University must put the appropriate sustainability staff in place
to help coordinate these efforts. Costs associated with this strategy include staff
time and marketing.
56
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
E&O.3 Increase Visibility of Climate Goals and Accomplishments

Description – The University will more actively promote its climate and
sustainability goals and accomplishments. The main UMUC website is frequently
visited – also, the Inn and Conference Center brings in thousands of visitors each
year. Climate content should be included in web and printed mediums to raise
awareness for UMUC visitors and community members.

Implementation – The University will add climate and sustainability content to
its main website. Here the University will highlight its commitment to climate
neutrality and include links to other material including its GHG inventories and
CAP. Furthermore, the University will continue to advertise its accomplishments
in a public forum (e.g., The Inn and Conference Center) and offer opportunities
for individuals to learn more (e.g., pamphlets, web addresses). This action should
be implemented immediately; costs associated with this action include staff time
and marketing.
E&O.4 Continue to Participate in Local and Region Research Efforts

Description – Despite its status as a non-research institution, UMUC has played a
valuable role in supporting local and national research in the climate and
sustainability field. Continuing along this path by hosting green conferences and
participating in research are important tools for supporting climate neutrality.

Implementation – The University will continue to seek partnerships with “green”
associations and organizations that wish to use the Inn and Conference Center
facilities for events. Furthermore, UMUC will continue to collaborate with
researchers studying climate and sustainability. Of particular interest to the
University is how its model of distance education can serve as an example for
other institutions looking to advance climate mitigation goals through reductions
in commuter GHG emissions. This strategy will be implemented immediately;
costs include those associated with negotiating research agreements and
protecting identifiable information.
5.4 Next Steps
The Climate Action Plan Workgroup recommends the University’s Provost and the
Office of Institutional Advancement evaluate the opportunities and hurdles related to
implementing individual education and outreach strategies. In addition to the goal of
increasing carbon awareness under the ACUPCC, CAP communication will emphasize
that benefits expected to accrue from these education and outreach actions include
reinforcing recruitment efforts at the University by appealing to environmentally
conscious consumers and complementing GHG mitigation efforts in UMUC’s electricity
and transportation sectors. If any particular policy or strategy can not be implemented or
57
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
implemented in a way outlined by the above assumptions and conditions, the responsible
offices will be prepared to justify why that policy was not met in UMUC’s next
ACUPCC progress report. All education and outreach strategies will be implemented by
2012 at the latest and will be continually revised to maximize effectiveness.
58
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
CHAPTER 6 – IMPLEMENTATION AND FINANCE
To reach the greenhouse gas mitigation and climate awareness goals outlined in the
Climate Action Plan, the University has adopted a set of guidelines to assist in
implementation and financing. The remaining CAP work lies in implementing strategies
and securing financing for costs, which include primarily staff time and marketing costs.
This chapter highlights next steps for implementing and financing the CAP.
6.1 Implementation
Responsibilities
Multiple strategies will be used to achieve the goals of the CAP. In turn, no single person
or office within the University can implement the CAP – responsibility will be shared. In
the previous chapters, offices and departments within the University are explicitly
identified as entities that should assume responsibility for strategy implementation. These
offices are encouraged to invest time upfront to clarify their specific role, develop the
staff and funding to properly formulate a clear plan, and execute the plan in a timely
manner. The Sustainability Coordinator will work with offices to ensure progress is being
made and to provide insight on technical issues. Communication across offices should
identify roles and responsibilities where there is uncertainty and the Sustainability
Coordinator will track roles and responsibilities for the whole University.
Reevaluating and Tracking
The strategies listed in the CAP are by no means individually complete nor do they
collectively exhaust all of the steps the University might take to achieve neutrality. For
this reason, the strategies need to be consistently evaluated, revised and expanded upon –
this will be particularly important as developments external to the University including
federal action on climate change or technology improvements will significantly impact
how the University proceeds towards neutrality. Monitoring of progress should be made
in reference to the details outlined in the CAP for each strategy. The UMUC CAP
Workbook should also indicate whether GHG reductions are on track or not.
Furthermore, as implementation proceeds, relevant information should be integrated into
the CAP and CAP Workbook, as both should function as living, continually updated
documents. The Climate Action Plan Workgroup along with the Sustainability
Coordinator will be responsible for regularly evaluating and improving upon CAP
strategies.
Tracking of actual emissions and emissions reductions will be guided by biennial GHG
inventories the University will conduct. Success of the collective portfolio of strategies
will be evaluated against GHG emissions.
59
UMUC Final CAP – 1/15/2010
ACUPCC Progress Reports
The forum for publically reporting progress towards neutrality, the ACUPCC reporting
website, is accessible online at http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/reporting.
Here, progress reports should update information on total GHG emissions (via biennial
inventories), CAP implementation, and other relevant information explaining the
University’s progress towards climate neutrality. For example, if emissions increase, then
this will be explained as adequately as possible in the progress report. Likewise, if the
University successfully reduces emissions from commuting, then it will explain whether
this was the result of a new GHG accounting methodology or whether emissions were
actually reduced. Table 6.1 shows near-term deliverables and corresponding deadlines for
the University’s CAP progress reports and updated GHG inventories.
Table 6.1 Near-term Deliverables and Timeline
Deliverable
CY 2009 GHG Inventory
2011 CAP Progress Report
CY 2010-2011 GHG Inventory
2012-2013 CAP Progress Report
Reporting Date
1/15/2011
1/15/2012
1/15/2013
1/15/2014
Time Period Analyzed
January 2009 - December 2009
January 2010 - December 2011
January 2010 - December 2011
January 2012 - December 2013
6.2 Financing
The University will finance the Climate Action Plan through capital project requests,
individual departmental budgets, and external sources. Additionally, the University will
seek public partnerships with the State of Maryland, the University System of Maryland
and the University of Maryland College Park, which provides a significant portion of the
University’s electricity, to find low-cost solutions to mitigate climate emissions and raise
climate awareness. Finally, the University will seek out partnerships with organizations
in the private sector to meet climate goals.
60