Sustainable Campus Committee Meeting Minutes
Monday, December 7, 2009
UC 329, 1:00pm – 3:00pm
Members Present: Brian Kerns, Lindsay Becker, Mike Panisko, Dan Corti, Mark LoParco, Cherie Peacock, Erica Bloom,
Kelly Chadwick, Chris Comer, Robin Saha, Derek Kanwischer
Other’s Present: Christina Voyles, Liz Roosa Millar
Old Business:
The November 4, 2009 SCC meeting minutes were approved.
Update - Green Cleaning Work Group (GCWG) - (Mark):
SCC members were sent the current draft of the Green Cleaning Product Policy for input. In writing the policy, the
Green Cleaning Work Group (GCWG) has been comprised of all departments implicated. The policy still needs
assessment of a list complied of all products used on campus, and which green products can replace those.
While drafting the policy, the GCWG have noted the need for an oversight committee (or SCC sub-committee) that will
continue implementing certain elements of the policy such as continued training & education, research, oversight of
purchases, use, compliance of products, establishing quarterly meetings.
The GCWG will advance the recommendations regarding implementation and oversight once the policy has been
accepted. The SCC will approve the final UM Green Cleaning Policy prior to submission for implementation as a campus
wide policy, aiming for implementation within a year.
Asdkahskl;djalwkertgjaklwegjkl;asrjgklasjgklasdjgklasdgjaklsdgjjgaklsd
Update - RELF Committee (Robin & Erica):
RELF met two weeks ago, went over RELF by-laws and some changes to clarify language, to discuss meeting dates, rules.
Erica has met with students to get the proposal process going and has looked at what other universities have done. Erica
has contacted Dr. Branch and Charlie Thorne about contacting building managers for potential projects. RELF will review
proposals once per semester. RELF funds will only go toward auxiliary buildings as they don’t currently receive money
for energy conservation the way state funded buildings do. An application page will be added to the SCC website for a
call for RELF proposals (projects must have a six year payback).
Liz mentioned that from the UC’s perspective it would be difficult to pay back any money to the fund. Cherie said that
RELF operates in a similar way to performance contracting where someone else pays for the work to be done, savings are
shared by both and future loan payments are included in annual budgets for building energy costs.
Update - Grant Funded Research (Chris):
Chris has compiled information on funding sources for the SCC, programs Chris recommended via the NSF website:
Environmental Sustainability: Industrial ecology through a science department or an Economics Professor can
get $100,000.
Energy for Sustainability: One program can get $100,000
“Sugar Awards” Partial grants which don’t go through a formal panel, can ask for smaller amount ($20,000) for a
smaller study and if the panel like the idea they may fund it, may give a full grant once the project is completed.
Ethics education for science and engineering: Focus on environmental ethics in engineering programs.
Natural & Human Systems: Projects focusing on the interaction between human systems and the environment.
Chris mentioned that there are many foundations offering grants specific to sustainability, many of those are interest in
funding work in Montana. Best way forward is to discuss what the top three grant opportunities the SCC should apply
for.
There was discussion on what projects the SCC would put forward for grant funding, projects relating to carbon
neutrality were cited, as well as projects the UM already has going (Green Thread, Climate Action Plan, Flat House, RELF).
There were suggestions on combining a grant with other departments, such as faculty/departmental travel. The SCC will
continue to discuss which grant opportunities to pursue at subsequent meetings.
Update - Climate Action Plan (CAP) – (Cherie & Erica):
The current CAP draft was presented to executive officers a few weeks ago; there has been an open house for the public
to comment on the draft. Three feedback sessions have been set up, one with Climate Action Now; two more have yet
to take place. The survey went out last week to all UM, responses are due by December 14th. Erica and Cherie will
compile all feedback, and present again to executive officers, prior CAP due date (ACUPCC requires President Dennison’s
signature on CAP, by January 15, 2010).
Discussion:
There was discussion on the SCC potentially not being able to see another draft of CAP prior to its submission to
President Dennison, which brought up the question of who was “writing” the CAP. Robin felt a specific date for carbon
neutrality needed to be stated in the plan. Cherie has done a cost analysis for neutrality by 2020 with strategies in the
plan ($83million over ten years, an additional $350,000 to attain neutrality by purchasing offsets); however cost
estimates for neutrality by 2030 or 2050 are more difficult to establish.
Robin voiced concern about the process and felt further input from the campus and local community was needed for the
SCC to weigh in. Kelly stressed the importance of the SCC as a UM group, and therefore seen as educators, informing
and leading the campus and local community. Dan suggested highlighting global implications to stress the importance of
local action. Chris stated that because many don’t believe climate change unless personally impacted, relay information
showing local ramifications (i.e.: less tourism, shorter ski season which would lessen jobs, etc.). Brian asked about adding
a graph to CAP showing the correlation between carbon emissions and a limit on UM’s growth. Cherie reiterated that
the concerns stated, are already part of the Green House Gas (GHG) inventory and that the purpose of CAP is to take
those concerns into action. Cherie mentioned requesting a letter of support from Steve Running as a possibility for
soliciting the community’s support.
Suggestions:
Derek said that Climate Action Now are promoting that CAP cite a date of 2020 and asked if that could be added to the
final plan. Cherie explained that this would depend on whether or not the executive officers agree to it. Robin felt more
time was needed to discuss various projects in the current CAP draft, and suggested asking the ACUPCC for an extension
so the SCC can provide more input.
Mike suggested the SCC re-read CAP and see if there’s a time prior January 15th everyone can meet to discuss what
changes the group feels need to be made.
NEXT MEETING : January 4th, 1pm – 3pm, location tbd