Sustainability:
Financial Benefits:
Return on Investment &
Funding Sources
Dennis Dill, MBA, LEED-AP
District Manager of
Maintenance and HVAC
About St. Louis Community College
• Four campuses at Florissant Valley,
Forest Park, Meramec and
Wildwood
• Three education centers in
St. Louis County, north
St. Louis City and downtown St.
Louis
• Numerous satellite locations in area
business, industrial, neighborhood
and educational sites
• Administrative Center, 300 South
Broadway
• 3,710 full- and part-time employees
Florissant Valley Emerson Center for Engineering and Manufacturing
Forest Park campus
Meramec campus
Wildwood campus
About St. Louis Community College
•
•
•
•
28,019 students enrolled in credit
courses
Median Age: 23/Average Age: 27
61% Female
Race and culture
– Caucasian = 13,133 (47%)
– African-American = 7,548 (27%)
– Hispanic/Latino = 692 (2%)
– Multiracial/Other Minority = 1,308
(5%)
– Unknown = 5,348 (19%)
– Represent 121 countries and 42
different language (top 5 are
Spanish, Arabic, Russian, Bosnian,
and African dialects)
STLCC has a diverse student population.
Mission Statement
St. Louis Community
College expands minds
and changes lives every
day.
We create accessible,
dynamic learning
environments focused on
the needs of our diverse
communities.
South County Education and University Center
Florissant Valley campus
Economic Analysis of Green Buildings
Potential savings areas – energy, water, sewer, health &
productivity, O&M, emissions…
A 2% premium pays back 10 times (estimated)
Many buildings see a ONE YEAR payback
Extra costs come from systems not normally found in
conventional buildings – rainwater harvesting
infrastructure, daylighting controls, energy recovery
ventilators, shower facilities, etc. Green building products
also cost more than traditional versions.
Cost reduction often occurs with reduced HVAC sizing,
energy saving equipment & practices.
6
The Business Case
1. Premiums paid are quickly recovered
2. Designed for cost-effectiveness (lower O&M)
3. Higher employee productivity
4. Better health & wellbeing
5. Reduced liability
6. Perceived value by tenants
7. Increased property value
8. Incentive / rebates
9. Better for the community
10. More accurate results forecasting
9/29/2011
The Economics (oh no…)
Two schools of thought –
1. HP buildings should cost the same as conventional.
2. The premium for an HP buildings will quickly be recovered
through operational savings.
LCA is needed to determine which is correct, but usually #2 is.
The result will be based on hard costs (easily quantified) and
soft costs (not easily quantified, like productivity).
Quantifying Benefits
Energy savings – LEED requires modeling using DOE – 2.2
or Energy 10. Has to meet ASHRAE 90.1-2007 at minimum.
Water & sewer – can be figured based on occupant load
projections and gpf info from mfg’s.
Health & productivity – be cautious & conservative, very
little scientific data is available (1% increase for certified &
silver, 1.5% for gold & platinum LEED certification.
Emissions & waste – can be readily calculated. Don’t
forget the construction waste diversion, recycled content of
building products, and post-occupancy recycling efforts!
9
Quantifying Benefits
Building commissioning – typically produces an energy
saving of 10% or more, with a payback period of 4 years or
less.
Miscellaneous – lower maintenance costs, built for
durability, grounds care
9/29/2011
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Simple payback
break even -
C=cxt
C = initial investment, c = annual savings, t = time
Net Present Value -
[ c x t / (1+r)t ] - C
c = annual savings
t = time in years (expected life of savings stream)
r = discount factor (competing rate of return)
C = initial investment
Internal Rate of Return If NPVr > NPVIRR then invest in project, else no.
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Payback period
Years
ROI (%)
Years
ROI (%)
(simple payback method)
1
100
11
9.09
2
50
12
8.34
3
33.3
13
7.7
4
25
14
7.15
5
20
15
6.67
6
16.67
16
6.25
7
14.29
17
5.89
8
12.5
18
5.56
9
11.11
19
5.27
10
10
20
5
RETURN ON INVESTMENT
Typical ROI’s
Lighting – 3 years or less
Mechanical
chillers – 5 to 8 years (depending on inefficiency of old equipment)
boilers – 8 to 12 years (depending on inefficiency of old equipment)
cooling towers – not usually performed solely for energy savings
VFD’s – .5 to 3 years
PVA – 8 to 40 years (we’ll come back to this…)
Wind turbine – 8 to 16 years (or never)
Building envelope – not usually performed solely for energy savings
FUNDING SOURCES
Grants
Rebates / incentives
Low-interest loans
Partnerships
ESCO’s
Paid-from-savings
Guaranteed savings
Byproduct of education
PVA Opportunity!!!
PVA Opportunity!!!
25KVA Array
$135,000
Ameren MO Incentive
-$50,000
Fed. Stimulus Money
-$50,000
Full Depreciation 1st Year
-$35,000
Final Cost
$0
Energy Savings = $2500/yr.
PVA life = 25-30 years
Net revenue = $75,000
Waste
Management
Strategies:
Measurement
guides action
Peggy Moody, Ph.D.
District Sustainability Coordinator
STLCC Efforts
 Recycling
with one
hauler added as a
district effort in 2006
 Composting added
2011
 Foam recycling 2011
 Electronics 2011
 RecycleMania 2011
Education Efforts
 RecycleMania


Clothing Exchange at
Meramec
ReUse Day at Cosand
Center
 Paper
Shredding at
Wildwood

Earth Day Extravaganza
at Forest Park
Education Efforts

PTK students collecting
rechargeable batteries

Wildwood students
collect shoes

Dumpster Dives

Students at Florissant
Valley and Meramec
look for recyclables in
the trash.
Earth Circle
 Dual
Stream
 Paper pays for the
plastic
 Special School
District Recycling
Technicians
Blue Skies Recycling
 Composting
 New
contract with
Treat America


No foam!!
Compostable
containers
Foam Recycling


Art Sculptures at
Meramec
Foam Dissolve


Dissolves then used
for road resurfacing
Foam Recycling from
Midwest Recycling
and Shredding

compression
Electronics Recycling



Collaborating with the
City of Florissant (4 years)
St Louis Earth Day
Extravaganza at Forest
Park campus
Districtwide (7) events
with Midwest Recycling
Center (MRC)
Cosand Center 2011
Flo Valley 2009
Regional
Challenge
St Louis Regional
Higher Education
Sustainability
Consortium (HESC)
RecycleMania is a:
 National
collegiate recycling competition
 Web-based ranking & benchmarking
system
 Recycling promotional framework for
colleges
 Tool for colleges to improve recycling
program
 Project of College and University
Recycling Council (CURC)
RM Competition
 Ten
weeks: midJanuary through
late-March
Colleges track and
report weights to
online form
 Rankings
updated
& published weekly
Eight competition categories





Overall diversion rate
Total per capita recycling
Total overall recycling
Lowest overall waste
generation
Targeted materials on per
capita basis
 Paper
 Cardboard
 Beverage containers
 Food waste
Goals of RecycleMania
Fair and friendly competition
 Increase awareness of waste reduction
programs
 Reduce overall waste generation on-campus
 Be a catalyst for schools to establish & expand
recycling programs
 Encourage professional measurement
standards & benchmarking

Resources for RM Participants
Listserv for coordinators
Technical support hotline
Promotional strategies
Sample case studies
Social networking websites
Professionally designed
outreach materials
 Archive of sample
promotional materials






Recap of benefits from 2009






510 colleges and universities
Participating colleges in all
50 states and Canada
4.7 million students
1.1 million faculty and staff
69.4 million pounds of
recyclables and organics
Prevented the release of 88,739
metric tons of carbon
equivalent (MTCE).
RecycleMania Recognition
Media:



New York Times
Newsweek
Boston Globe
Used as sustainability benchmark by:



Princeton Review
Kaplans College Guide
American College & University
President’s Climate Commitment
A Regional Case Study
St Louis Regional Higher Education Sustainability
Consortium (HESC)



One-year old bi-state consortium
The Consortium’s mission is to advance collective
sustainability initiatives that cultivate innovation
The HESC goal was to have 100% participation
across 17 area schools (we achieved 80%)
Participants (*first time)

Benchmark level












Fontbonne University *
Harris-Stowe State
University *
Maryville University *
Principia College *
STLCC-Central Office *
STLCC-Florissant Valley *
STLCC-Forest Park *
STLCC-Meramec *
STLCC-Wildwood *
Southern Illinois University
at Edwardsville *
Southwestern Illinois
College *
Webster University *

Competition level





Missouri University of
Science & Technology
Saint Louis University *
University of Missouri,
Columbia *
University of Missouri, St.
Louis
Washington University
1
2
3
4
5
Week
6
7
8
9
10
Average lbs/person per week recycled
Average lbs/person per week for Recyclemania
participants
1.03 lb a person per week
Weights by week for competitive Recyclemania
participants
100,000
90,000
80,000
70,000
60,000
50,000
40,000
30,000
20,000
10,000
0
1
2
3
4
5
Week
6
7
8
9
10
“GORILLA PRIZE” COMPETITION
DIVISION
600,000
400,000
200,000
10,000
0
Total Weights for Most STL-HESC
Schools
Fontbonne University
 Harris Stowe State
University
Maryville University
Missouri University of S& T
STLCC-Central Office
STLCC-Florissant Valley
STLCC-Forest Park
STLCC-Meramec
STLCC-Wildwood
Saint Louis University
University of Missouri,
Columbia
University of Missouri, St.
Louis
Washington University
Webster University
 Southwestern Illinois
College

ALL TO TOGETHER = 881 TONS
=266 Elephants
Or, filling the STLCC Wildwood building with 6 inches of recyclables
Regional impact
 HESC
saved 5 times the
amount of the Grand
Champion school
California State U at
San Marcos
 HESC saved a tipping
fee $30,512.00
*Info determined using the 2011
average tipping fees.
RM Trash Diversion from Landfill
Measurements across STLCC Campuses
 Cosand
diverted
10,048 lbs (33.46
lbs/person)
 Florissant Valley
diverted 39,726 lbs
(10.25 lbs/person)
 Forest
Park diverted 33,998
lbs (7.82 lbs/person)
 Meramec diverted 43,391.2
lbs (5.43 lbs/person)
 Wildwood diverted 30,165.2
lbs (22.96lbs/person)
Info for STLCC Leadership:


Cost for trash during
this 10 week
challenge = $4150.00
for 189,607.5 lbs
Cost for recycling =
$977.50 for bottles
only (paper no
charge) for 160,928.4
lbs of mixed paper
and bottles
 Conclusions
 recycling
SAVES
money;
 also noted, we are
not filling trash to
contract costs so
 could renegotiate
lower fees by 1/31/2.
Regional Lessons Learned



There is a region-wide
need for accurate,
standardized numbers
from waste haulers
Rigorous attention to
detail needed
There is a major need for
increased recycling
education to improve
recycling rates on every
campus.





Begin early to raise
awareness (fall)
Measure trash as well as
recyclables
Get more student
involvement via challenges
Together we rise as we
partner with SWMD for
education grants
We were the first to track
RM as a region
STLCC Lessons Learned


o
Be transparent about
measurements
Measuring uncovers
“the mystery”
Contract leverage for
One District rather
than separate
campuses

Keep it fun!!!
 Get
caught green
handed
 Waste-less Wed