Benchmarking Benefits for Energy/Water Use
– 54 College Campuses in Minnesota
Rick Carter, FAIA, LEED AP
Sally Grans-Korsh, FAIA,
LEED AP
Tom McDougall, PE,
Assoc. AIA
Society for College and
University Planning
Minneapolis Convention
Center
July 14, 2010
Lake Superior College – First MnSCU LEED Certification
the weidt group®
1
Agenda
1. Explanation of MnSCU's process.
2. Overview of energy and water consumption; strategies and
benchmarking.
Demonstration of web training to educate users.
3. Database Overview
Campus results and outcomes.
4. Specific evaluation of water data.
5. Campus staff pitfalls.
Capital budgeting.
Summary of MnSCU system and outcomes.
6. Q & A
2
Learning Objectives
1. Explore the basics about energy use intensity, how energy
can be converted to a common unit (kBtu), normalized by
area (square foot) and time (year), and how to calculate
this information for a building and campus.
2. Determine how to efficiently collect information from
accounting and facility staff.
3. Determine how to calculate the best benchmark, compare
the data, and develop a case study for use in making
recommendations going forward.
4. Apply the data collected, and communicate performance
benchmarks to facility managers and users to influence
behaviors and reduce consumption.
3
MN State Colleges & Universities
U of M
29
Million
Sq Ft
MnSCU
26.7
Million
Sq Ft
Other
State
Agencies
29 Million
Sq Ft
University of
Minnesota
13%
Private
Colleges and
Universities
14%
• 7 state universities
Private Career
Schools
10%
Minnesota
State Colleges
& Universities
63%
• 25 community technical colleges
• 54 campuses in 46 communities
• 21.7 million square academic
• 5 million square feet revenue
4
• 6,937 acres with
• 320 acres of roofs
2010 System Action Plan

System Strategic Goal 4.2
Reward and support institutions, administrators, faculty
and staff for innovations that advance excellence and
efficiency

Energy Conservation
1. Develop a comprehensive environmental
sustainability policy for Board adoption
2. Publish procedures and standards for sustainable
planning, design, construction and operation of
facilities
3. Develop a System-wide energy benchmarking system
4. Report system accomplishments to the Board
5
1. Policies – updated in 2010

Board Policy 5.17
Rewritten and renamed Sustainability, Resources
Conservation and Recovery, and Environmental
Responsible Practices.

Board Policy 6.4
Facilities Planning – required planning for facilities
modernization, renewal, and improved sustainability to
President’s scope of responsibility.

Board Policy 6.6
Facilities maintenance and repair added energy efficiency
as component to facilities management.
All of the policies supported the Energy Benchmarking
study!
6
2. Design and Construction Standards

Design & Construction Sustainable Standards
Updated
 Performed a “credit analysis” by LEED (Leadership
Energy Efficiency Design) standard
 Updated standards to ensure compliance with both LEED
and B3 (State of Mn Buildings, Benchmarks & Beyond)
 Final review (April 2009):
 “… any significant new construction projects that
comply with .... MnSCU Design Standards would be
comparable to LEED “Silver” certification project.”
7
Design and Construction Standards




23% of campuses have received (or are in process) of
LEED or B3 certification
Lake Superior Administration recently received LEED
certification and Winona State University Wellness Center
near completion of LEED certification
90% purchase green building materials
72% recycle construction materials
8
3. History – Energy Benchmarking
“Cannot improve what you cannot measure.”
 Official Benchmark in place using B3 as basis
 Campus work began May 2009 – and is ongoing
 Separate attachment with data
 System-wide awareness of energy use and opportunities
to reduce consumption, save $$
 Department of Administration began energy tracking
system several years ago
 Creation of the RFP; took two times !
9
B3 - Buildings, Benchmarks & Beyond





Started in 2004 as an initiative, Law in 2009
Use of B3 allows campus to review data and improve
understanding of energy use
B3 allows Office of Chancellor and campuses to create
analysis of what are optimum infrastructure investments
Quarterly reports will allow timely response to potential
utility errors
Use of B3 allows campus to have access funding in
PBEEEP program
10
Metrics used to Benchmark Buildings?

Cars use: Miles per gallon

Lighting efficiency: Lumens per Watt

Buildings: Energy Use Intensity (EUI) typically
expressed in units of annual energy consumption per
floor area per year such as kBtu/sq ft/ year

Environmental issues; CO2 / Sq ft/ per year
11
Using the B3 Benchmarking System

Update utilities data every month: Insures greater
accuracy and up to date information for users.

Review Data: B3 website data can be viewed monthly in
a numeric and graphical format. A review can quickly
ensure the accuracy and changes that occur in campus
energy use.

Future Updates: Starting quarterly reports to campus and
system; exporting pertinent data into a Excel spreadsheet
for customizing reports and analysis.
12
Results from 2009

$31 million was expended for total energy costs in 2009
for all campuses –reflects consistency in system has been
at approx. $30 million for utilities in the last three years

Averages 101.68 kBtu/sq ft: previous Midwest study
indicated national average was between 50 and 120
kBtu/sq ft

Average $1.19/square foot
Average $219/year per FYE or $70 year per headcount
Average water consumption was approx. five (5)
gallons/occupant


13
Average kBtu/sqft for calendar year 2009
Total Energy Consumption 2009 Calendar Year (kBtu/SF)
175.00
150.00
Solid bars are 2 Year Colleges.
Hollow bars are 4 Year
Universities
System average is 102 kBtu/SF
125.00
100.00
75.00
50.00
25.00
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54
14
Sorting by Campus Type - Average kBtu/sq ft per
calendar year 2009
Energy Consumption Kbtu/Sq Ft 2009 by Campus Type
20.00
Bemidji State University
Metropolitan State University
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Minnesota State University Moorhead
Southwest Minnesota State University
St. Cloud State University
Winona State University
Anoka-Ramsey Community College, Cambridge
Anoka-Ramsey Community College, Coon Rapids
Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College
Inver Hills Community College
Normandale Community College
North Hennepin Community College
Alexandria Technical College
Anoka Technical College
Dakota County Technical College
Hennepin Technical College, Brooklyn Park
Hennepin Technical College, Eden Prairie
Minnesota State College-Southeast Technical, Redwing
Minnesota State College-Southeast Technical, Winona
Northwest Technical College, Bemidji
Pine Technical College
South Central College, Faribault
South Central College, Mankato
St Cloud Technical and Community College
Central Lakes College, Brainerd
Central Lakes College, Staples
Century College
Lake Superior College
Minneapolis Community and Technical College
Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Detroit Lakes
Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Fergus Falls
Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Moorhead
Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Wadena
MN West Community & Technical College, Worthington
Mn West Community and Technical College, Canby
Mn West Community and Technical College, Granite Falls
Mn West Community and Technical College, Jackson
Mn West Community and Technical College, Pipestone
Northeast Higher Ed District, Hibbing Community College
Northeast Higher Ed District, Mesabi Comm Tech College-Virginia
Northeast Higher Ed District, Itasca Community College
Northeast Higher Ed District, Mesabi Comm Tech College-Eveleth
Northeast Higher Ed District, Rainy River Community College
Northeast Higher Ed District, Vermilion Community College
Northland Community and Technical College, East Grand Forks
Northland Community and Technical College, Thief River Falls
Ridgewater College, Hutchinson
Ridgewater College, Willmar
Riverland Community College, Albert Lea
Riverland Community College, Austin
Riverland Community College, Owatonna
Rochester Community and Technical College
Saint Paul College
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
15
Average kBtu/sq ft by Region calendar year 2009
0.00
Alexandria Technical College
Pine Technical College
Ridgewater College, Hutchinson
Ridgewater College, Willmar
St Cloud Technical and Community College
St. Cloud State University
Anoka Technical College
Anoka-Ramsey Community College, Cambridge
Anoka-Ramsey Community College, Coon Rapids
Century College
Dakota County Technical College
Hennepin Technical College, Brooklyn Park
Hennepin Technical College, Eden Prairie
Inver Hills Community College
Metropolitan State University
Minneapolis Community and Technical College
Normandale Community College
North Hennepin Community College
Saint Paul College
Fond du Lac Tribal and Community College
Lake Superior College
Northeast Higher Ed District, Hibbing Community College
Northeast Higher Ed District, Itasca Community College
Northeast Higher Ed District, Mesabi Comm Tech College-Eveleth
Northeast Higher Ed District, Mesabi Comm Tech College-Virginia
Northeast Higher Ed District, Rainy River Community College
Northeast Higher Ed District, Vermilion Community College
Bemidji State University
Central Lakes College, Brainerd
Central Lakes College, Staples
Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Detroit Lakes
Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Fergus Falls
Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Moorhead
Minnesota State Community & Technical College, Wadena
Minnesota State University Moorhead
Northland Community and Technical College, East Grand Forks
Northland Community and Technical College, Thief River Falls
Northwest Technical College, Bemidji
Minnesota State College-Southeast Technical, Redwing
Minnesota State College-Southeast Technical, Winona
Minnesota State University, Mankato
Riverland Community College, Albert Lea
Riverland Community College, Austin
Riverland Community College, Owatonna
Rochester Community and Technical College
South Central College, Faribault
South Central College, Mankato
Winona State University
MN West Community & Technical College, Worthington
Mn West Community and Technical College, Canby
Mn West Community and Technical College, Granite Falls
Mn West Community and Technical College, Jackson
Mn West Community and Technical College, Pipestone
Southwest Minnesota State University
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
140.00
160.00
Central
Metro
Northeast
Northwest
Southeast
Southwest
16
Example of Individual Campus report –
To be discussed later in greater detail
17
4. Metrics used in Sustainability Report to document
Metrics
used in Sustainability Report
campus
accomplishments
18
Campus Accomplishments – i.e. Energy
19
Campus
Accomplishments
20
Overview of Energy and Water Consumption
65% total US electricity
consumption
>36% total US primary
energy use
30% total US
greenhouse gas
emissions
136 million tons of
construction and
demolition waste in the US
(approx. 2.8
lbs./person/day)
12% of potable water in
the US
Quality Bicycle Products
40% of raw material use
globally (3 billion tons
21
annually)
Energy Efficiency and Daylighting
Strategies:
Building orientation
Daylighting
Energy analysis
Efficient equipment
and appliances
Efficient ventilation
Lighting controls
22
Phillips Eco Enterprise Center
Water Conservation Strategies
Strategies:
Use native
plantings
Low flow fixtures
Waterless urinals
Dual flush toilets
Rainwater
harvesting
Grey water reuse
23
Ridgewater College
Performance Metrics™
LHB’s energy use intensity (EUI) metric
is measured in kilo (1,000) British
thermal units per square foot per year
(kbtu/sf/year). The lower a building’s
EUI, the better. Bar graphs compare
projected and actual EUI of LHB
designed buildings to that of an average
building of the same type in the region
(a target established by The 2030
Challenge).
EUI 42
EUI 56
100
kBtu/sf/yr
LHB Performance
Metric™ : Energy Use
Intensity (EUI)
The average energy
consumption of
existing buildings of
the same type
The model and
actual energy use
of the completed
LHB Project
50
0
ProjectedActual
Bldg type 2030 Goal Project
average
EUI 25
The goal for energy
consumption
determined by the
2030 Challenge for
the year 2005
2030
Future
Target goal
determined for
the 2030
Challenge for
the year 2010
24
Performance Metrics™
LHB Performance
Metric™ : Water
Numbers are acquired in a
measurement based off of gallons per
occupant per day. The calculation is
then measured against varying
comparable facilities. In some cases the
original existing facility and in other
facilities of the same type.
The resulting metric is OWC =
Occupant Water Consumption
The calculated water
usage of a selected
comparable facility
100
75
50
40
30
0
ProjectedActual
Comparable
Facility
OWC 2
OWC 3
The consumption
LHB model the
facility to meet
and the actual per
occupant
consumption
LHB Facility
OWC 20
25
B3 Energy
Benchmarking
Introductory
Training
Meetings
MnSCU Energy Benchmarking
Training

Training objectives

Selecting the right campus staff to train

Organizing the training process

Assigning tasks

Keeping the system up-to-date
New B3 Energy
Benchmarking
Training Objectives
Introductory
Training
Meeting

Obtain user login credentials and help desk
support

Add new buildings to your organization’s portfolio

Accurately enter building data

Trouble shoot error and warning messages
New B3 Energy
Benchmarking
Training Objectives
Introductory
Training
Meeting

Read your utility bill to accurately enter meter
information

"Institutionalize" your workflow for keeping your
energy consumption data current

Interpret Benchmark and Baseline results

Develop user-defined selected report
presentations

Create a plan to improve your buildings
New B3 Energy
Benchmarking
Introductory
Training
Meeting
Selecting the right campus staff
to train

Campus CFO – Executive buy in to manage and
be accountable for data entry process is
important

Facility manager staff – Account for all buildings,
meters and specific building space use and
operation parameters

Accounts payable staff – Receives utility
invoices, paying and entering bill data is the best
time to enter the energy data into the Energy
Benchmarking System
New B3 Energy
Benchmarking
Introductory
Training
Meeting
Organizing the training process

Held 12 webinars with no more than 3 to 5
campus teams in attendance. Provided ability to
ask and answer questions.

Established tasks and follow-up status meeting
for each campus 4 weeks after initial training
session

Utilized online training video and call in support
line

Confirmed follow-up status meeting one week
prior to meeting
New B3 Energy
Benchmarking
Introductory
Training
Meeting
Assign Tasks
1.
2.
3.
4.
Assign a data owner from the organization to
assist in:
• Providing and reviewing building information
needed for the project
• Provide fuel source utility account
information for all meters serving the
campus
• Each data owner to enter contact info and
password to obtain login credentials using
the Contact us form.
Data owner to work with Help Desk Team with
questions as they arise.
Establish a deadline for entering building
information
Establish a workflow process for entering fuel
source meter accounts serving the buildings.
New B3 Energy
Benchmarking
Introductory
Training
Meeting
Facility Data Tasks
1.
Review current list of buildings on the site
2.
Add or Delete buildings by contacting the Help
Desk team. The Help Desk team will add or
delete buildings as you request.
3.
For each building, review space usage
breakdown and occupancy levels, edit if
needed.
4.
Add any special space conditions for the
building.
5.
Enter Optional Building system data if desired,
this is not a requirement.
6.
After data entered for each building is correct,
Click the completed check box at the bottom
of the Building data screen.
New B3 Energy
Benchmarking
Introductory
Training
Meeting
Meter Data Tasks
1.
Collect a list of all fuel source meters for the
organizations sites and identify which
buildings they serve.
2.
Add or edit existing meters ID’s and names on
the site. Be sure to select the correct utility
company name, account number and Meter
ID from your utility bill. Also select which
buildings the meter serves.
3.
Collect all monthly utility bills for 2006, 2007,
and 2008 if possible.
4.
Enter or review monthly utility bill consumption
and cost information for each meter. We
would like to have 3 years of data for 2006,
2007, and 2008 entered.
Overview of the B3 Energy Benchmarking

Your first step in reducing the energy consumption and
carbon emissions of your existing facilities

Compare the energy consumption and costs of one or all
your buildings, month to month or year to year

Stack rank which of your buildings are most cost-effective
to improve

See at a glance which buildings are using more energy
than a previous year

Automatically calculates your building’s carbon footprint
34
What is Energy Benchmarking?

Benchmarking offers a quick and initial building energy
performance assessment without rigorous evaluation.

It is a management tool to identify buildings that have
higher than expected energy consumption.

Buildings with higher than expected energy consumption
have the greatest potential for easy improvement at low
cost and high return on investment
35
The Merits of Benchmarking
Spend time and money on buildings
that need it
MN Energy Code Target Range
Dramatic difference in return on investment for
retrofit$$
50% Over Code
Number of Buildings
120
100
Best Candidate Buildings
for Investing Energy Efficiency Dollars
80
60
40
20
0
10
40
70
Annual KBtu/sq. ft.
100
130
160
190
220
250
280
What is Energy Baseline Assessment?

Energy Baseline assessment allows you to see which of
your buildings are using more or less energy than a
previous baseline year.

It will focus your attention on energy consumption
problems you can fix right away so you can determine
what is required to maintain or improve its energy
consumption.
37
B3 Benchmarking Introduction



Started in 2004 to guide the effective allocation of energy
conservation investments in existing public buildings in
Minnesota
Relies on a web-based tool through which building
representatives enter data
Participant response has been highly positive
 Over 5,000 public buildings have submitted information
and are now tracking data
 Over 85% of the estimated population
38
Different Benchmarking Comparison Methods



Compare a building to itself over time.
Compare a building to an Energy Use Intensity
benchmark of an informed engineering model.
 Use of a building model set to current practice or
base energy code parameters
Compare a buildings rank within a population of similar
building type and location.
 A relative comparison typically expressed as a
percentile ranking
The B3 Benchmarking Tool currently supports the first 2 methods
and will automatically present Energy Star Ratings in 2010.
39
Essential information to Benchmark Buildings




Building type or space use
Building floor area
Climate location
Metered energy consumption from all fuel
sources
 Electricity
 Natural Gas
 Purchased steam
 Purchased chilled water
 Propane, Oil, others
40
4 Easy Steps




Measure
Your buildings' current performance.
Compare
Each building's performance to its custom benchmark.
Improve
The buildings that need the most help. (Low hanging fruit)
Manage
Your building’s continued performance as compared to its
past performance.
41
How the Benchmarking program works

Go to MNBenchmarking.com website and submit your list
of buildings.

Enter information about your building - floor area, age, and
space use.

Enter monthly utility data by fuel source.

Website automatically compares your buildings energy
use to its custom benchmark.
42
Current Website Features
New Home page
View online video
tutorial, sign up for
future training and
webinars, FAQ’s,
glossary, and
overview of how
system works
Get help desk
support, obtain user
name and password
credentials, add
buildings, etc.
43
Current Website Features
Benchmark View
Expected Meter
consumption
Actual Meter
consumption
Ratio of Actual to
Expected
44
Current Website Features
Baseline View
Baseline Meter
consumption
Current Meter
consumption
% change
Current to
Baseline
45
DELETE Current Website Features
Reporting Has Many Options for Comparing Consumption, C02, and Costs
46
Current Website Features
Reporting Views All Fuels with Baseline
Annualized
comparison
table
47
Current Website Features
Reporting Views Actual Gas Compared to Baseline
Annualized
comparison
table
48
Current Website Features
Reporting Views Annual CO2 Emissions compared to Baseline Year
Annualized
comparison
table
49
•
B3 Benchmarking Demonstration
Performance Metrics™
LHB Performance
Metric™ : Water
Numbers are acquired in a
measurement based off of gallons per
occupant per day. The calculation is
then measured against varying
comparable facilities. In some cases the
original existing facility and in other
facilities of the same type.
The resulting metric is OWC =
Occupant Water Consumption
The calculated water
usage of a selected
comparable facility
100
75
50
40
30
0
ProjectedActual
Comparable
Facility
OWC 2
OWC 3
The consumption
LHB model the
facility to meet
and the actual per
occupant
consumption
LHB Facility
OWC 20
51
Water Data
52
Water Data
53
Water Data

Determination of
student count

Influencers:
student housing
and pools

Site watering

Next steps
54
Lake Superior 54
College
Overall
Strategic
Plan
matches to
the data
from
Energy Use
55
Specifics

Campuses
must document
overall
improvement of
energy use in
capital projects.

Overall 10%
points added in
the process for
improving
energy use.
56
Examples: use of data

Most obvious is the updating
of old, inefficient major HVAC
equipment
57
Go after “easy items” to conserve
 Retrofit
utility plant boilers
 Centrally
control building HVAC
systems
 Install
heat recovery coils
 Convert
to digital thermostats
 Upgrade
to LED lighting
 Install
energy efficient windows
 Utilize
timer switches for lighting
 Install
energy star appliances
 Use
electronic and low consumption
faucets
58
Adding value with roofs
 Roofing project renovation boosts insulation value from
R13 to R23, producing energy savings of $20,000
annually
59
Adding value to exterior envelope
Note: exposed concrete
t’s in upper photo and
after encapsulation.
Before
This detail saved campus
weather infiltration.
After - Alexandria Technical College
60
Adding value to exterior
Note: simple reroof and
addition of enclosed,
greater insulation will
improve campus energy.
Before
This detail will save
campus with weather
infiltration.
After - Vermilion Community College
61
Before: Failing
exterior brick with
no insulation
After: New
skin/roof at MSU
Mankato Athletic
Renovation
62
Adding value with increasing daylight
 Light shelves at two
different campuses
Light Shelf
in Classroom
Light Shelves in multiple
locations in Library
63
Adding value with increasing daylight
 Introduction of borrowed
lights in classrooms,
garages, and other spaces
64
Adding value to retrofit existing curtain walls
Funding for replacement of
single pane curtain walls is
estimated at saving
$5,000/year at this 1960’s
campus.
65
Adding value: thinking
sustainable
Note: example of a campus
thinking energy and overall
long term sustainability:
 Big Belly solar trash
compacter at remote
parking lot. Does not
require electrical conduit
and allows for compaction
for ease of operational
pickup.
Rochester Community Technical College
66
Adding value - using IT resources to conserve energy
 250 computers
replaced with
iMacs for
electrical savings
approaching
$3,000 annually
67
Adding value - using IT resources to conserve energy
 Server virtualization
saves hardware
costs of $5,000 per
unit while producing
energy and cooling
savings of $80 per
server a year
68
Q&A
LHB, Inc.
www. LHBcorp.com
Center for Sustainable Building
Research, University of Minnesota
www. csbr.umn.edu
The Weidt Group
www.twgi.com
Minnesota State Colleges & Universities
www.mnscu.facilities.edu
B3 Guidelines
www.scbr.umn.edu/B3
LEED
www.usgbc.org
Green Communities
www.greencommunities.com
2030 Architecture
www.architecture2030.org
Energy Star
www.energystar.gov
Lake Superior College
the weidt group®
69