2010
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
May 15, 2010
i
Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC)
Climate Action Plan
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ ii
List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ii
List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ iii
Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................... iv
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... vii
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1
1.1. Institution: Finger Lakes Community College .......................................................................... 1
1.2. Science: Climate Change Impact ............................................................................................. 1
1.3. Policy: Evolving Climate Change Policy and Legislation ......................................................... 2
1.4. Commitment: The ACUPCC and Finger Lakes Community College........................................ 3
1.5. Overall Approach: Development of the Climate Action Plan within the ACUPCC Framework 4
1.6. Aligning the CAP with FLCC’s Future: College Planning Initiatives ....................................... 5
1.6.1. FLCC Go Green Initiative ................................................................................................ 5
1.6.2. FLCC 2008-2013 Strategic Plan....................................................................................... 6
1.6.3. U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement ..................................................................... 6
1.6.4. New York State Governor’s Executive Order 24 .............................................................. 6
1.7. Summary................................................................................................................................. 7
2. Campus GHG Emissions ............................................................................................................. 8
2.1. Baseline Year FY 2000 ........................................................................................................... 8
2.1.1. Trends from FY 2000 to 2008 .......................................................................................... 9
2.2. Forecasting Emissions through 2035...................................................................................... 11
2.3. External Goals ....................................................................................................................... 13
3. Campus Energy Consumption .................................................................................................. 15
3.1. Background ........................................................................................................................... 15
3.2. Historical Energy Consumption ............................................................................................. 15
3.2.1. Electric Utility Billing Data ........................................................................................... 15
3.2.2. Submetering Data .......................................................................................................... 17
3.2.3. Natural Gas Utility Billing Data ..................................................................................... 26
3.3. Historical Energy Use: Summary & Relevance ...................................................................... 28
4. Mitigation Strategies ................................................................................................................. 29
4.1. Background ........................................................................................................................... 29
4.2. Emission Reduction Strategies............................................................................................... 29
4.3. Behavior Change ................................................................................................................... 31
4.4. RECs and Offsets .................................................................................................................. 33
4.4.1. Renewable Energy Credits or Certificates (RECs) .......................................................... 33
4.4.2. Carbon Offsets ............................................................................................................... 35
4.5. Recommendations ................................................................................................................. 40
5. Education, Research, and Awareness/Communication ............................................................ 49
5.1. Background ........................................................................................................................... 49
i
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC)
Climate Action Plan
5.2. Educational Offerings: Curricular .......................................................................................... 49
5.2.1. Relevant Course Offerings ............................................................................................. 49
5.2.2. Relevant Course Requirements ...................................................................................... 55
5.2.3. Pedagogical Methods ..................................................................................................... 56
5.2.4. Specific Actions ............................................................................................................. 56
5.3. Educational Offerings: Co-Curricular .................................................................................... 58
5.3.1. Athletics ........................................................................................................................ 58
5.3.2. Student Life ................................................................................................................... 59
5.3.3. Student Housing ............................................................................................................ 60
5.4. Additional Environmental Priorities....................................................................................... 61
5.5. Communication and Engagement .......................................................................................... 62
6. Results Tracking and Financing ............................................................................................... 64
6.1. GHG Tracking ...................................................................................................................... 64
6.2. Financing .............................................................................................................................. 65
6.2.1. Energy Savings Performance Contracts .......................................................................... 65
6.2.2. Revolving Fund ............................................................................................................. 66
6.2.3. Green Fee Program ........................................................................................................ 66
7. References .................................................................................................................................. 68
List of Figures
Figure 2.1. Baseline (FY2000) GHG Emissions by Source
Figure 2.2. GHG Emission Intensity (GSF and FTE basis) for FY2000-08
Figure 2.3. Business-as-Usual GHG Emissions Forecasts through 2050
Figure 2.4. GHG Emissions Reduction Trajectory
Figure 3.1. Monthly Energy Consumption Trend – Combined Accounts
Figure 3.2. Daily Main Service Submetered Data Trend
Figure 3.3. Daily Submetered Data Variation with Ambient Temperature
Figure 3.4. FLCC One-Line Diagram with Submeter Locations Downstream of Main Utility
Account
Figure 3.5. 15-minute Submeter Data From MDP Mains
Figure 3.6. Distribution of MDP Energy During Submetering Period
Figure 3.7. Power Use Patterns – Submetered MDPs
Figure 3.8. MDP-1 Daily Power Profiles
Figure 3.9. MDP-3 Daily Power Profiles
Figure 3.10. MDP-4 Daily Power Profiles
Figure 3.11. Occupied and Unoccupied (Baseload) Period Energy Consumption
Figure 3.12. Natural Gas Consumption History
Figure 3.13. Natural Gas Consumption Variation with Ambient Temperature
Figure 4.1. FLCC Stabilization Wedge Diagram
List of Tables
Table 2.1. GHG Emissions and Intensities by Source (FY2000 and FY2008)
Table 2.2. Emissions Intensity by Emissions Source (FY2008 data)
ii
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC)
Climate Action Plan
Table 2.3. Projections for Emissions Intensity Metrics
Table 2.4. Interim and Long-Term Climate Action Goals
Table 2.5. Annual Usage Reduction Goals
Table 3.1. Monthly Electric Utility Billing Data
Table 3.2. Temperature Dependent and Independent Loading – Main Submeter
Table 3.3. Natural Gas Consumption and Cost
Table 4.1 Listing of Preferred Offset Providers Which Sell to Businesses
List of Appendices
Appendix A. FLCC Lighting Assessment
Appendix B. FLCC Plug Load Assessment
Appendix C. Basis for Project Recommendations
Appendix D. Project Summary Sheet
iii
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC)
Climate Action Plan
Executive Summary
Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC) is a two-year institution of higher education located in
Canandaigua, NY. Located on a 250-acre park-like campus, the College has 6,700 full-time and parttime students enrolled in more than 40 academic degree and certificate programs.
“Finger Lakes Community College will be the college of choice for students and a dynamic
regional learning resource, central to the cultural and economic vitality of the area.”
In support of the American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC),
FLCC has made a long-range institutional commitment to carbon neutrality. In the fiscal year (FY)
2000 baseline year, FLCC’s GHG emissions were 8,161 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2E). After accounting for institutional growth, FLCC’s gross emissions are expected to
increase to 10,913 MTCO2E by 2013 and remain there under business-as-usual scenarios.
As an interim goal to carbon neutrality, FLCC has set a target of reducing its GHG emissions to 10%
below baseline (FY 2000) levels by 2020.
•
For FLCC, this corresponds to an emissions target of 7,345 MTCO2E by 2020, or approximately
3,600 MTCO2E below business-as-usual emissions.
FLCC is committed to meeting its interim target. In addition, FLCC intends to achieve zero net GHG
emissions by, or as soon after 2030 as technology will allow. As shown in the table and figure below,
FLCC will utilize a portfolio of expected strategies to mitigate these emissions.
Demand Side Management (DSM)
(Infrastructure)
LEED policy for new construction –
exceed NYS Energy Code by 20%+
Retrocommissioning for up to 10%
energy reduction
Implementation of HVAC energy
conservation measures
Installation of localized heat pumps
Interior lighting fixture Retrofits to
T5 or T8
Interior lighting occupancy controls
LED exterior lighting
IT – Server Virtualization
IT – Energy Star Power Management
IT – Networked printers and copiers
DSM
(Behavior)
Sustainability pledge
program for up to 5%
energy reduction.
IT-specific informational
campaign
Plug load reduction
Transportation – priority
parking and rates for lowemission vehicles
Transportation – no-idling
policy
Waste minimization plan
iv
Renewable Energy
Offsets
Conversion of waste
oil to biodiesel
Composting of food waste
Carbon sequestration
through on-campus tree
growth
Purchased Renewable
Energy Credits
Purchased carbon credits
to offset emissions
remaining after other
measures have been
implemented
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC)
Climate Action Plan
FLCC has begun incorporating sustainability into campus life through a variety of curricular and cocurricular offerings. These include courses and orientations that incorporate sustainability themes as
well as initiatives related to student life, student housing, and athletics that address sustainability.
FLCC will continue to engage the campus on sustainability by establishing individuals responsible
for coordination of sustainability activities within each department or unit at FLCC.
FLCC has developed an institutional structure for campus sustainability that includes the following
organizations:
•
•
Buildings and Grounds department
Sustainability Committee
o Presidents Climate Commitment (PCC): Operations
o PCC: Curriculum
o PCC: Student Life
o Full-Time Sustainability Coordinator
These departments and committees will support the emissions reduction projects proposed in this
Plan, by providing recommendations on funding, implementation, and measurement/verification of
the projects.
FLCC will consider utilization of the following funding sources for implementing emissions
reduction projects:
•
Capital Improvement Plan
•
NYSERDA incentives for energy efficiency
These recommendations will be updated within five years as additional analyses are completed.
FLCC will also track progress toward goals through biennial public updates to its GHG emissions
inventory.
v
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC)
Climate Action Plan
FLCC Stabilization Wedge Diagram
12,000
11,000
Baseline Year
(FY 2000)
Business-As-Usual →→
10,000
Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2E)
9,000
8,000
Interior Lighting & Control Upgrades
7,000
Exterior Lighting Upgrades
IT - Server Virtualization
6,000
IT - Energy Star Power Management
IT - Printers and Copiers
IT Behavior Change & Plug Load Reduction
5,000
HVAC and Retrocommissioning
10% Goal (7,345
MTCO2E by 2020 )
Heat Pumps
4,000
LEED NC
Transportation Policy
3,000
General Behavior Change
Composting
2,000
Waste Oil to Biodiesel
Carbon Sequestration by On-Campus Trees
1,000
RECs
Carbon Credits
Net Emissions
0
vi
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC)
Climate Action Plan
Acknowledgments
Finger Lakes Community College would like to acknowledge those individuals and organizations that
have contributed to the development of this Plan, including FLCC President Dr. Barbara Risser, who
has provided the leadership to make visionary commitments on behalf of the College. FLCC
acknowledges O’Brien & Gere and CDH Energy for assisting with the engineering and scientific
analysis in the development of this Plan.
2009-10 Sustainability Committee
Facilities and Grounds
Kim Babcock, Chair
Jan Holloway, Director
Heather Carnell, Recorder
Steve Ernhout
Jeff Savage
Barron Naegel
PCC: Curriculum
Clinton Krager
Kim Babcock, Chair
Jane Rogalski
Anne Schnell, Co-Chair
Bruce Jensen
Heather Carnell, Recorder
Donna Dobbler
Maureen Maas-Feary
Bruce Treat
Curt Nehring Bliss
Noah Pasqua-Godkin
Jake Amidon
Pam Webb
Barb Selvek
Brandon Krebs
Amy Warcup
Clinton Krager
PCC: Operations Committee
Barron Naegel
Kim Babcock, Chair
Barb Chappell
Heather Carnell, Recorder
Jeff Paton
Bruce Treat
Dave Bloom
PCC: Student Life
Larry Dugan
Kim Babcock, Chair
Mike Fisher
Heather Carnell, Recorder
Karen Van Keuren
Sarah Whiffen
Tom Priester
Martin Glieco
Bob Lowden
Peg Pelletier
vii
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
1. Introduction
1.1. Institution: Finger Lakes Community College
Established in 1965, Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC) opened its doors in September 1967
in Canandaigua, NY, 45 minutes southeast of Rochester. The first full-time freshman class entered in
January 1968, with 85 full-time and 125 part-time students, and seven full-time faculty members.
Today, the college’s main campus is located in a 250-acre park-like setting, minutes from the north
shore of Canandaigua Lake. Current enrollment includes 6,700 full- and part-time students, the
highest in its history, representing students from over 300 high schools in New York State, other
states, and other countries. FLCC employs approximately 350 full-time and 250 part-time faculty and
staff.
FLCC is affiliated with the State University of New
York, and has four locations: Canandaigua (the main
campus), Geneva, Newark, and Victor Extension
Center, with a view towards serving the needs of
Ontario, Seneca, Wayne and Yates counties in the
Finger Lakes region of upstate New York.
FLCC’s vision is to be the college of
choice for students and a dynamic
regional learning resource, central to
the cultural and economic vitality of
the area.
This Climate Action Plan includes only those campuses where the College has operational control
and can enforce a change in policy. Under this definition, only the main campus (Canandaigua) is
covered for the purposes of this Climate Action Plan.
The main campus conducts the majority of its classroom activities in a 325,000 sq. ft. multilevel
building, and includes laboratories, classrooms, studios, a television station, a simulated nursing
station, a greenhouse, an arboretum, a library, and a gymnasium. The campus grounds contain nature
trails, outdoor classrooms, athletic fields, and the Constellation Brands – Marvin Sands Performing
Arts Center.
1.2. Science: Climate Change Impact
In its Fourth Assessment Report, the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(IPCC, 2007) stated that:
•
•
•
Warming of the climate system is “unequivocal” based on observations of temperatures, sea
levels, and snow melts;
Global concentrations of greenhouse gases (GHG) in 2005 far exceeded the natural range
observed over the last 650,000 years; and
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is
“very likely” (i.e., >90% confidence) due to the observed increase in anthropogenic or
human-caused GHG concentrations.
Climate change will cause impacts on water resources, food production, ecosystems, weather
patterns and human health in all parts of the world, including:
1
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
•
•
•
•
•
Decreased water availability and increasing drought in mid-latitudes and semi-arid low
latitudes;
Decreased cereal productivity at low latitudes;
Risk of extinction of global plant and animal species (up to 30% or even more depending on
scenario);
Increased warm spells, heat waves and heavy precipitation events; and
Increased morbidity and mortality from changing weather patterns, changed disease vector
distributions, and malnutrition.
Further, these effects will be felt over several decades due to the long atmospheric life spans of
greenhouse gases.
1.3. Policy: Evolving Climate Change Policy and Legislation
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) coordinates international
efforts to combat climate change. The Kyoto Protocol to the UNFCCC (United Nations, 1997) called
on developed countries to reduce their total GHG emissions in the 2008 to 2012 commitment period
by an average of 5% versus a 1990 baseline. Over the past decade, the European Union has
undertaken high-profile steps to meet their Kyoto targets, including the establishment of the European
Union Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS, 2007).
While the United States has not participated in the Kyoto Protocol commitments, U.S. federal policy
on climate change has developed rapidly in recent months as evidenced by the following:
•
February 12, 2009: The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 2009 allocates over $36
billion for energy efficiency, conservation and renewable programs
•
March 10, 2009: The EPA releases a proposed rule for mandatory GHG reporting that
would account for 85 - 90% of U.S. GHG emissions
•
March 31, 2009: A proposed bill establishing a cap-andtrade system with mandatory GHG reduction targets is
circulated among lawmakers (American Clean Energy
and Security Act of 2009)
•
April 17, 2009: The EPA releases an endangerment finding stating that GHGs endanger
human health and welfare; this was a follow-up to a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court ruling stating
that CO2 was a pollutant and as such was subject to regulation by the EPA
•
May 19, 2009: President Obama announces new vehicle fuel economy standards that
harmonize states and the federal legislation / standards
•
June 26, 2009: The American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009 passes the House of
Representatives
•
June 30, 2009: EPA grants waiver to the state of California to set its own, state-specific
greenhouse gas emissions limits from cars
•
September 22, 2009: EPA finalizes GHG mandatory reporting rule
2
Federal policies are evolving
in the direction of aggressive,
broad-based climate action.
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
While numerous high profile federal environmental policies are emerging from the current
Administration, voluntary and mandatory programs have been on-going for some time at the local,
state, and regional levels. Prominent among these are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
EPA Climate Leaders
The Climate Registry
Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI)
California’s Global Warming Solutions Act (Assembly Bill 32)
U.S. Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement
American College and University Presidents’ Climate Commitment (ACUPCC)
1.4. Commitment: The ACUPCC and Finger Lakes Community College
The American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC) is an effort to
make the U.S. Higher Education sector more sustainable, obtaining institutional commitments to
“reduce and ultimately neutralize greenhouse gas emissions on campus” and “accelerate the research
and educational efforts of higher education to equip society to re-stabilize the earth’s climate”
(ACUPCC, 2007).
Climate change poses a fundamental challenge to the way individuals and organizations use energy
and resources. The ACUPCC presents an opportunity to lead by example, educating the next
generation of national, business and media leaders on how to address this challenge.
ACUPCC Commitment
“We believe colleges and universities must
exercise leadership in their communities
and throughout society by modeling ways to
minimize global warming emissions, and by
providing the knowledge and the educated
graduates to achieve climate neutrality.”
Over 650 colleges and universities have committed to being carbon neutral at some point in the
future. In March 2008, President Risser signed the American College and University Presidents
Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). Becoming a signatory to the ACUPCC requires implementation of
the following:
•
Establishing an institutional structure to oversee the school’s ACUPCC Commitment: With a
Sustainability Committee, an appointed Sustainability Coordinator, and active leadership
from Facilities staff, FLCC has the institutional structure for implementation of its
sustainability programs and outreach efforts.
•
Completing a GHG emissions inventory within one year: FLCC has prepared GHG
inventories for multiple years (FY2000-FY2008; O’Brien & Gere, 2009).
3
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
•
Developing a climate action plan (CAP) – including a target date for climate neutrality and
interim progress milestones – within two years: The FLCC Climate Action Plan (CAP) – this
document – has been developed in accordance with the timeline.
•
Choosing at least two of seven action steps towards GHG reduction: FLCC immediately
adopted two tangible actions: 1) Established a policy that all new campus construction will
be built to at least the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED Silver standard or equivalent,
and 2) Adopted an energy-efficient appliance policy requiring purchase of ENERGY STAR
certified products in all areas for which such ratings exist.
•
Implementing the work products of the CAP
•
Integrating sustainability into the educational curriculum
•
Making the CAP, GHG inventory, and progress reports publicly available: FLCC’s CAP,
GHG inventories, and progress reports are available on the AASHE website
http://acupcc.aashe.org/.
Beyond these activities, President Risser approved in summer 2009 a Sustainability Vision, Mission,
and Philosophy that were crafted by the Sustainability Committee during the spring of 2009 (FLCC,
2009a).
FLCC’s Sustainability Mission Statement:
Finger Lakes Community College is dedicated to stewardship of the natural beauty of the area
through modeling and teaching sustainable practices that promote environmental, economic,
and social responsibility. We seek sustainability in our daily operations, curriculum, student
life, and community partnerships.
1.5. Overall Approach: Development of the Climate Action Plan within the ACUPCC
Framework
The requirements of the ACUPCC signatory letter include development of an institutional action plan
for becoming climate neutral (no net GHG emissions) by minimizing GHG emissions as much as
possible through demand and supply side management and using carbon offsets or other measures to
mitigate the remaining emissions.
The institutional climate action plan has been developed within two years of
signing the ACUPCC and includes:
•
•
•
•
•
A target date for achieving climate neutrality as soon as possible;
Interim targets for goals and actions that will lead to climate neutrality;
Actions to make climate neutrality and sustainability a part of the curriculum
and other educational experience for all students;
Actions to expand research or other efforts necessary to achieve climate
neutrality; and,
Mechanisms for tracking progress on goals and actions.
4
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
1.6. Aligning the CAP with FLCC’s Future: College Planning Initiatives
Opportunities exist to align the goals and actions of the CAP with concurrent key initiatives driven by
internal and external programs. The directives of these
programs are summarized within the following plans:
Sustainability is more than just
recycling. Sustainability means meeting
• FLCC “Go Green” Initiative
the needs of present generations
• FLCC 2008-2013 Strategic Plan
without compromising the ability of
• U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
future generations to meet their own
• New York State Governor’s Executive Order 24
needs. This is about creating a better
world for all to live in.
Many components of these existing initiatives lend
support to FLCC’s CAP or, in turn, can be supported
- Kim
Babcock,
FLCC
Sustainability Coordinator
and enhanced by the CAP as summarized below.
1.6.1. FLCC Go Green Initiative
FLCC’s Go Green initiative, launched in March 2008, strives to integrate sustainability into the
following areas (FLCC, 2008):
1.
2.
3.
4.
Curriculum
Operations
Student Life
Community Outreach
The appointment of FLCC’s firstever Sustainability Coordinator in
September 2008 provided a boost
to the College’s sustainability and
outreach efforts, and provided a
single point of contact for
managing and coordinating a
diverse set of activities.
FLCC has taken dozens of steps towards becoming a more
sustainable campus as part of its “Go Green” initiative,
including:
• Converting 300+ fixtures to more efficient lighting
• Use of locally grown foods in the cafeteria when
possible
• Rain garden to protect against erosion
• Several course offerings focusing on sustainability
• Regular hosting of webinars to reduce travel
• HVAC control system installation in Ontario Building
• Use of drop ceilings in several buildings to reduce
heating and cooling needs
• Addition of recycling bins to classrooms and offices
• Multiple measures to save paper, including increased
use of PDFs instead of printed copies, electronic
assignment submission, payroll, and more.
FLCC
has
developed
a
“Sustainability Pledge” for its
students to read and sign. Along
with course offerings focusing on
sustainability, signing the pledge encourages students to directly take responsibility for promoting
sustainability, and to take appropriate actions to be more sustainable in their own lives.
FLCC has also partnered with a local television station, Channel 8 WROC-TV/WUHF-TV, to
produce and distribute “Green Reports” – informative, educational and inspirational segments on
what it means to go green in the Finger Lakes region. Additionally, FLCC also organizes activities on
events such as Earth Day and Campus Sustainability Day to further spread the message and improve
understanding.
5
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
1.6.2. FLCC 2008-2013 Strategic Plan
FLCC’s five-year Strategic Plan (FLCC, 2009b) has the following broad goals:
Strategic Goal
Learning and Student Success
Strategic Growth
Efficient and Effective Operations
Community Value
Description
To improve engagement, learning, and successful transfer/
employment
To increase the enrollment of traditional and non-traditional
students within the College service area by identifying and
addressing emerging educational needs and new markets
To strengthen the College’s financial position by improving the
efficiency and effectiveness of college programs and operations
To increase the College’s cultural and economic impact on the
service area
Of these, the goal of efficient and effective operations lends itself well to sustainability measures
including some already being undertaken by FLCC. Other goals, such as those relating to growth, will
need to be managed in light of its Sustainability Mission and its commitments to the ACUPCC. For
example, the construction of new residential dorms to accommodate additional students has followed
green building (LEED) design.
1.6.3. U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement (2005) was an initiative
launched by the U.S. Conference of Mayors to advance the goals of the
Kyoto Protocol through leadership and action by American cities at the local
level. This initiative was launched in February 2005, to coincide with the
effective date of the Kyoto Protocol for the countries that had ratified it up
to that point. The Agreement was endorsed at the 2005 U.S. Conference of
Mayors meeting in June 2005 with 141 signatories. Today, over 1000 U.S.
mayors have now signed on to the Agreement on behalf of their cities and
towns, including Canandaigua Mayor Ellen Polimeni. Other signatories from the region include the
mayors of Brighton, Hornell, Irondequoit, Ithaca, Rochester, and Syracuse.
Under the Agreement, participating cities commit to take the following three actions:
1. Strive to meet or beat the Kyoto Protocol targets in their own communities, through actions
ranging from anti-sprawl land-use policies to urban forest restoration projects to public
information campaigns;
2. Urge their state governments, and the federal government, to enact policies and programs to
meet or beat the greenhouse gas emission reduction target suggested for the United States in
the Kyoto Protocol – 7% reduction from 1990 levels by 2012; and
3. Urge the U.S. Congress to pass the bipartisan greenhouse gas reduction legislation, which
would establish a national emission trading system.
1.6.4. New York State Governor’s Executive Order 24
6
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
In August 2009, New York State Governor David Paterson signed
State, 2009) with the following objectives:
(a) Setting a goal of reducing statewide GHG emissions to 80%
below 1990 levels by 2050; and
(b) Requiring the drafting of a State Climate Action Plan by
September 2010. This Plan is to be drafted by a Climate Action
Council consisting of heads of various State agencies, including
those associated with agriculture; economic development;
energy; environmental conservation; and budget, among others.
Executive Order 24 (New York
Executive Order 24 applies
to all greenhouse gas
emissions from the State of
New York, not just those
associated with government
agencies.
1.7. Summary
The development and implementation of this CAP provides opportunities for shaping existing internal
and external initiatives. In turn, these initiatives provide guidance for the priorities outlined in this
CAP. In summary, this CAP has been developed in the context of complementary objectives
including:
•
•
•
FLCC’s sustainability vision
FLCC’s strategic planning objectives
Local and State climate action planning objectives
Taken together, these plans hold the promise of making FLCC a more resourceful community that
actively minimizes its impact on the environment while moving toward its long-term strategic goals.
7
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
2. Campus GHG Emissions
2.1. Baseline Year FY 2000
As part of its commitments under ACUPCC, Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC) has prepared
a baseline greenhouse gas (GHG) inventory and publicly posted it on the ACUPCC online reporting
tool (AASHE, 2009a).
In the baseline year, total gross emissions were 8,161 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent
(MTCO2E).
Mobile Sources
2%
Stationary Sources
9%
Purchased
Electricity
28%
Solid Waste
4%
Air Travel
0.3%
Commuting
57%
FLCC, FY2000
Total = 8,161 MTCO2E
Figure 2.1. Baseline (FY2000) GHG Emissions by Source
(Note: totals do not add up to 100% due to rounding)
The primary emission sources were commuting (students and faculty/staff) and purchased electricity,
collectively accounting for approximately 85% of total annual gross emissions, with commuting alone
accounting for 57%. As FLCC progresses toward the long-term goal of achieving carbon neutrality,
these two sources will have to be prioritized in order to achieve meaningful overall GHG emissions
reductions.
8
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
2.1.1. Trends from FY 2000 to 2008
In FY 2008, total gross emissions increased 7% relative to the FY 2000 baseline, driven by a 16%
increase in emissions due to purchased electricity and a 9% increase in emissions due to commuting.
Table 2.1. GHG Emissions and Intensities by Source (FY2000 and FY2008)
FY 2000
FY 2008
Scope 1
Stationary
739
540
Emissions
Mobile
184
191
(Metric
923
730
tons CO2E) Total Emissions
Scope 2
Purchased Electricity
2,275
2,637
Emissions
(Metric
2,275
2,637
tons CO2E) Total Emissions
Commuting
4,606
5,020
Scope 3
Air Travel
25
25
Emissions
Solid Waste
331
331
(Metric
tons CO2E) Total Emissions
4,962
5,376
Total Emissions
8,161
8,744
Gross Square Footage (GSF)
322,698
505,181
Scope 1 – 3
Full-time Equivalent Students (FTE)*
1,242
1,299
Emissions
Total Emission Intensity per 1000 GSF
25.3
17.3
(Metric
tons CO2E) Total Emission Intensity per FTE
6.6
6.7
*Note: FTE represents the number of full-time equivalent students enrolled on the FLCC Main Campus for the Fall semester
of the fiscal year, e.g., Fall 1999 for FY2000.
Over the FY 2000 to 2008 period, total GSF grew by 57% while total emissions increased by only
7%, resulting in a 32% decline in emission intensity per 1000 GSF. By contrast, total emission
intensity per FTE in FY 2008 remained near FY 2000 baseline levels. As FLCC progresses towards
its long-term goal of achieving effective carbon neutrality, emission intensity will have to continue to
decline in order to reduce GHG emissions while allowing for institutional growth.
9
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
30
10.0
MTCO2E/FTE
9.5
25
9.0
20
8.5
15
8.0
7.5
10
7.0
5
6.5
0
2000
6.0
2001
2002
2003
2004
Fiscal Year
2005
2006
2007
2008
Figure 2.2. GHG Emission Intensity (GSF and FTE basis) for FY2000-08
For reference, average Scope 1-3 gross emission intensities for the Carnegie classification under
“Associates and Tribal Colleges”, under which FLCC falls, are 29.02 MTCO2E/1000 GSF and 3.21
MTCO2E/FTE (AASHE, 2009b). In FY2008, FLCC’s emission intensities per 1000 GSF were 40%
lower than the AASHE average; by contrast, emission intensities per FTE were 110% higher than the
corresponding AASHE average.
10
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Total Gross Emission Intensity (Metric Tons CO2E per FTE)
Total Gross Emission Intensity (Metric Tons CO2E per 1000 GSF)
MTCO2E/1000 GSF
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
2.2. Forecasting Emissions through 2035
Scope 1-3 emission sources were placed into two categories, based on whether they were more
closely correlated to building space (GSF) or population (FTE). Accordingly, purchased electricity
and stationary combustion were classified as sources more closely correlated with GSF, while mobile
combustion, commuting, and air travel were classified as sources more closely correlated with FTE.
Table 2.1 below lists the emissions intensities for FY2008.
Table 2.2. Emissions Intensity by Emissions Source (FY2008 data)
Emission
Intensity
Sources dependent on GSF (MTCO2E per 1000 GSF)
Purchased electricity
5.22
Stationary combustion
1.07
Sources dependent on FTE (MTCO2E per FTE)
Mobile combustion
0.15
Commuting
3.86
Air travel
0.02
Solid waste
0.25
Emissions intensity metrics for total GSF and total FTE were obtained from FLCC master planning
documents (FLCC, 2007) and five-year projections (FLCC, 2009), respectively. For GSF, the sole
addition considered relative to FY2008 was the new Student Services Center, expected to add 75,000
GSF starting FY2012. GSF values were assumed to remain unchanged thereafter through FY2050.
However, it should be noted that new construction of a greenhouse and athletic field house are
expected but planning details are not yet available.
Fall semester intake under a moderate expansion scenario was considered for FTE projections
through FY2013. FTE values were assumed to remain unchanged thereafter through FY2050. Table
2.2 lists these projections, as well as available data for FY2008 and FY2009.
Fiscal Year
(FY)
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2015
2020
2030
2040
2050
Table 2.3. Projections for Emissions Intensity Metrics
1000 GSF
FTE
505.2
505.2
505.2
505.2
580.2
580.2
580.2
580.2
580.2
580.2
580.2
1299
1411
1483
1586
1633
1695
1695
1695
1695
1695
1695
11
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Source emissions intensities from Table 2.1 were multiplied by GSF and FTE projections from Table
2.2 to forecast future GHG emissions by source (Figure 2.3), assuming a business-as-usual trajectory.
These forecasts show an increase in business-as-usual emissions from 28,640 MTCO2E in the
baseline year (FY2000) to 39,319 MTCO2E in 2010, and 45,122 MTCO2E in 2050. This represents a
37% increase in emissions by 2010, and a 58% increase in emissions by 2050, relative to the baseline
level. It is this emissions increase that FLCC intends to arrest, and reverse, through the
implementation of the present Climate Action Plan.
12
Baseline Year = FY2000
GHG Emissions (thousands MTCO2E)
10
8
Solid Waste
Air Travel
6
Commuting
Purchased Electricity
4
Mobile Combustion
Stationary Combustion
2
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Fiscal Year
Figure 2.3. Business-as-Usual GHG Emissions Forecasts through 2050
12
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
2.3. External Goals
The ACUPCC does not prescribe a timetable for when each signatory must achieve its long-term
commitment to carbon neutrality. It is common practice for institutions involved in climate action to
establish interim and long-term emissions reduction goals to facilitate planning for ambitious climate
neutrality goals. Both science-based and policy-based targets can provide guidance for potential
reduction goals.
The table below summarizes various proposed goals at the local, national, and international level for
GHG emissions reductions:
Table 2.4. Interim and Long-Term Climate Action Goals
Scope
Internationala
National
Organization
Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC, 2007)
American Clean Energy and
Security Act of 2009b
(ACESA, 2009)
GHG Emission Reduction Goal
•
•
•
•
25% below 1990 levels by 2020b
80% below 1990 levels by 2050b
3% below 2005 level in 2012
20% below 2005 level in 2020
• 42% below 2005 level in 2030
• 83% below 2005 level in 2050
New York Governor’s
• 80% below 1990 levels by 2050b
Executive Order 24 (2009)
Local
U.S. Mayors Climate
• 7% below 1990 levels by 2012b
Protection Agreement (2005)
a
– also recommended in the ACUPCC Implementation Guide
b
– For the purposes of this table, FY2000 used as baseline for reductions instead of 1990.
c
– passed the U.S. House of Representatives on June 26, 2009
State
Under these external goals, FLCC would need to decrease GHG emissions by approximately 6,000
metric tons CO2E by 2030, and 10,000 metric tons CO2E by 2050, relative to the College’s businessas-usual trajectory. If FLCC begins taking action in 2010, this would involve reductions of 200-250
metric tons CO2E annually to meet the 2050 objective.
13
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
12
10
GHG Emissions (thousands MTCO2E)
US Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
NYS Executive Order 24
8
ACES
IPCC
6
FLCC Business-As-Usual Forecast
4
2
0
2000
2010
2020
2030
2040
2050
Fiscal Year
Figure 2.4. GHG Emissions Reduction Trajectory
The following table shows how an annual GHG emissions reduction of 250 metric tons CO2E would
translate into actual energy and resource usage reductions for various emission sources.
Scope
1
2
3
1-3
Table 2.5. Annual Usage Reduction Goals
Annual GHG
Corresponding
Emissions Reduction
Annual Usage
Source
Reduction
(MTCO2E)a
Stationary sources
23
428
Mobile sources
5.6
641
Purchased
electricity
70
187,500
Commuting
141
2,550
Air Travel
0.8
1,329
Solid Waste
10
10
Total
Usage Units
(substance used)
MMBTU (natural gas)
gallons (gasoline)
kWh
vehicle miles
passenger-miles
US tons
250
a - The target overall reduction of 850 MTCO2E is distributed among sources according to the percentage contribution of
each source.
14
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
3. Campus Energy Consumption
3.1. Background
Greenhouse gas emissions are directly tied to energy consumption. Therefore, in order to effect
meaningful GHG emissions reductions, it is instructive to look at the energy sources yielding these
emissions. Further, from a practical perspective, it is prudent to investigate and disaggregate energy
consumption over which an entity has direct control. This allows for establishment of an energy use
baseline and allows for the identification of areas of greatest opportunity in energy consumption,
similar to the objectives of the GHG base case described in Section 2.
This section details the disaggregation of historical energy consumption at FLCC, primarily from an
energy-use (i.e., billing) perspective. Detailed information from an electrical load perspective
(lighting and plug loads) can be found in Appendices A and B of this CAP.
Appendix A includes documentation of interior and exterior lighting fixtures, including the functional
area, the area illuminated, the quantity of fixtures, and the energy usage of fixtures (kWh/yr). The
interior lighting assessment is organized by building floor and considers both existing fixtures and the
result of a proposed retrofit of existing T-12 and T-8 fluorescent lighting with high efficiency T-5
lighting fixtures. The exterior lighting assessment considers parking lot lights, roof mounted building
lights, pedestrian access lighting and security lighting, and includes recommendations for day lighting
controls.
Appendix B includes documentation of campus plug loads. A room by room evaluation was
performed to provide a sample and document the approximate quantity and type of plug loads
throughout the campus. Plug loads identified in this assessment are separated into three major
categories consisting of office and personal equipment, information technology equipment and other.
The other category consists of specialty equipment or areas with equipment and systems that are
unique to the particular area. Overall, plug loads account for electricity usage of 451,290 kWh
annually, or approximately 6.9% of the total campus load. The single largest consumer is computers,
monitors and IT equipment totaling approximately 89% of plug load.
3.2. Historical Energy Consumption
Utility billing data for electricity and natural gas consumption at the college were examined to
quantify the overall energy consumption, and to determine patterns and trends in the consumption that
indicate the distribution of end-use energy at the college.
3.2.1. Electric Utility Billing Data
One year of monthly electricity and natural gas data from NYSEG, the prevailing utility company,
was examined. The data spans from November 2008 through November 2009 for electricity and
October 2008 through October 2009 for natural gas.
FLCC is served by seven utility accounts on three different electricity rates. The largest account
serves the majority of the campus buildings (the “main” account), is on NYSEG Rate SC8 (large
general service time-of-use) and has provisions for primary voltage delivery and hourly ESCO
15
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
commodity pricing. This account totals 6.43 million kWh/year of energy consumption, nearly 98% of
the entire energy consumption for the campus.
The next two largest accounts (the Day Care Center and Honors House) are on NYSEG rate SC7
(large general service time-of-use). These accounts total approximately 104,000 kWh/year combined,
and account for less than 1% each of the annual energy consumption at the campus.
Finally there are four small accounts (the Barn, P5, Hot Box #1 and Hot Box #2) on NYSEG rate SC2
(small general service with demand metering). These accounts combined total 37,000 kWh/year, and
each account for less than 1% of the annual campus energy consumption.
The combined campus energy consumption is 6.58 million kWh/year as shown in Table 3.1. The
varied rates across the different billing accounts result in a marked difference in the average cost of
energy between accounts. Accounts with lower energy use tend to have a higher cost of energy. Also,
the main account is under an ESCO price option for eight months of the year examined, so the full
energy charge for these months is not fully accounted for. Energy cost for these months are based on
the average of the previous four months. Combined energy charges for the campus are estimated at
$622,000/year, or an average cost of energy of 9.4¢/kWh.
Table 3.1. Monthly Electric Utility Billing Data
Month
Days
Oct-08
Nov-08
Dec-08
Jan-09
Feb-09
Mar-09
Apr-09
May-09
Jun-09
Jul-09
Aug-09
Sep-09
Total
31
32
30
29
31
30
29
29
33
30
32
29
365
Average Cost ($/kWh)
Main
Day Care
Honors House
Barn
P5
Hot Box #1 Hot Box #2
PSC19 SC8 PSC19 SC7
PSC19 SC7
PSC19 SC2 PSC19 SC2 PSC19 SC2 PSC19 SC2
Total
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
Energy
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
(kWh)
551,013
4,200
78
3,240
558,531
565,755
5,160
8,208
71
3,360
893
1,555
585,002
506,923
3,780
7,000
67
200
982
1,458
520,410
581,057
4,980
8,417
42
1,800
1,485
681
598,462
628,258
4,440
10,743
45
1,680
1,434
728
647,328
521,551
3,540
5,855
72
920
1,632
1,382
534,952
517,554
2,280
4,097
70
1,240
424
1,336
527,001
453,341
1,920
4,976
19
800
411
92
461,559
527,446
2,400
4,244
22
1,480
452
105
536,149
518,928
2,760
1,184
72
2,720
10
525,674
549,385
4,140
1,185
48
1,640
58
556,456
518,634
3,180
5,292
70
1,920
3
529,099
6,439,845
42,780
55,909
676
21,000
7,713
7,408
6,580,623
97.86%
0.65%
0.85%
0.01%
0.32%
0.12%
0.11%
100.00%
$
0.094 $
0.121 $
0.114 $
0.403 $
0.218 $
0.073 $
0.090 $
0.094
Note: Yellow indicates months with ESCO price billing option
16
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
700
Energy Consumption (thousand kWh)
600
500
400
300
200
100
-
Figure 3.1. Monthly Energy Consumption Trend – Combined Accounts
Figure 3.1 shows the monthly energy use trend for the combined campus. The energy use varies from
a low of 461,000 kWh/month in May, when the campus is partially closed due to end of classes. This
low electricity use also corresponds to mild ambient temperatures, indicated limited space heating or
cooling during this month. Monthly electricity use peaks at 647,000 kWh/month in February – which
corresponds to one of the darkest and coldest months. This increase in energy coincident with colder
ambient temperatures indicates a substantial level of electric space heating operation at the campus.
3.2.2. Submetering Data
Supplementing the monthly utility data are submetering data for the main electrical service to the
campus (the Main utility account). Daily energy data covering July 7, 2008 through December 12,
2009 (503 days) were available for analysis (Figure 3.2). The daily data follows the monthly data
trend across the year, peaking in the winter and decreasing in both December and May when classes
are reduced. The data also indicates a difference of 7,500 – 10,000 kWh/day between weekday and
weekend/holiday operation.
17
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
FLCC Main Service Daily Submetering Trend
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
2008
Aug Sep Oct Nov
2009
Figure 3.2. Daily Main Service Submetered Data Trend
The daily data were plotted against ambient temperature to determine the extent of correlation in the
electricity consumption to ambient conditions. Figure 3.3 displays the plot of daily energy versus
ambient temperature, with weekday and weekend data plotted separately. Again, the 7,500 – 10,000
kWh/day difference between weekend and weekday data is observed.
Both weekend and weekday data trends indicated a change-point model with relation to temperature.
The change-point is where the trend changes slope from increasing energy with decreasing
temperature to increasing energy with increasing temperature. There is a slight deadband between the
change over from heating to cooling operation, where energy consumption is relatively flat. Heating
operation typically occurs below 45°F, and cooling operation occurs above 60°F.
During cooling operation, on both weekends and weekdays, a group of days were observed with
energy consumption below the trendline. This may be due to partial shutdown of some sections of the
building during the summer (when the class load is lighter).
The increase in daily energy consumption from 60°F to 95°F indicates a peak daily energy
consumption of 6,000 kWh/day for cooling – which is equivalent to a constant 300-ton cooling at 0.8
kW/ton (estimated for a small chilled water plant including pumps). This cooling load is in line with
observed size of the two chillers (300-tons and 500-tons).
The increase in daily energy consumption from 45°F down to 0°F can be attributed to increase pump
and fan operation during heating, as well as increased site lighting due to a decrease in the number of
daylight hours in the winter period.
18
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
FLCC Main Meter Variation with Ambient: 07/27/08 - 12/12/09
30000
Weekdays
Weekends
Energy (kWh/day)
20000
10000
0
0
20
40
60
Ambient Temperature (F)
80
100
Figure 3.3. Daily Submetered Data Variation with Ambient Temperature
Using the trendlines in Figure 3.3, the submetered data was separated into temperature dependant
energy (heating/cooling) and temperature independent (baseload) energy for a typical year. A total of
9% of the campus energy use can be attributed to temperature-dependent heating or cooling, and 91%
of the campus load on the main meter is continuous baseload.
19
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Table 3.2. Temperature Dependent and Independent Loading – Main Submeter
Energy
(kWh/year)
275,099
140,228
4,732,705
90,030
94,512
1,107,271
6,439,845
Weekday Temperature Dependent (Heating)
Weekday Temperature Dependent (Cooling)
Weekday Temperature Independent (Baseload)
Weekend Temperature Dependent (Heating)
Weekend Temperature Dependent (Cooling)
Weekend Temperature Independent (Baseload)
Total
(%)
4%
2%
73%
1%
1%
17%
100%
Comparing the total cooling energy use from the trends of 365,129 kWh/year to the nominal
operating chiller power of 400 kW (500-tons × 0.8 kW/ton) indicates that the cooling system at the
college has a load representing 912 equivalent full load hours1 (EFLH). These EFLH are consistent
with an office/educational building located in a mild cooling climate, where the expected range of
EFLH is 800-1000 hours/year.
Finally, three sets of 15-minute interval submeter data were available from meters place on the
service for three main distribution panels (MDP-1, MDP-3, MDP-4) (Figure 3.4).
NYSEG Utility Service
Main Service
Submeter
Primary Voltage Switchgear (15 kV)
(15 kV)
(15 kV)
Primary
T-1
Transformers
DEMB1
MDP-1
Submeter
T-2
(277/480 V)
Emergenc
y
Generator
Transfer Switch
(15 kV)
T-3
(277/480 V)
MDP-1
MDP-2
(12) 277/480 VAC
Load Panels
(14) 120/208 VAC
Load Panels
(4) 277/480 VAC
Load Panels
(6) 120/208 VAC
Load Panels
(15 kV)
DEMB4
MDP-4
Submeter
T-4
(277/480 V)
(277/480 V)
Chillers
DEMD3
MDP-2
Submeter
MDP-4
Load Panels
(type and quantity
unknown)
(3) 277/480 VAC
Emergency Panels
(3) 120/208 VAC
Emergency Panels
Figure 3.4. FLCC One-Line Diagram with Submeter Locations Downstream of Main Utility
Account
This data was available for 32 days spanning November 12, 2009 through December 14, 2009 (Figure
3.5).
1 365,129
kWh/year ÷ 500-tons × 0.8 kW/ton = 912 hours/year equivalent full load.
20
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
FLCC Submetering Data: Nov 12, 2009 - Dec 14, 2009
600
MDP-1
MDP-3
MDP-4
Power (kW)
400
200
0
9
16
23
30
Nov
7
14
Dec
2009
Figure 3.5. 15-minute Submeter Data From MDP Mains
All three meters indicated a constant baseload of energy consumption, and then increased
consumption during occupied hours. MDP-1 is the largest of the three service panels, with a baseload
of near 250 kW during unoccupied hours, and a peak load of 550 kW during occupied hours.
•
•
•
MDP-1 displayed a slight increase in the building baseload energy consumption after
December 7, where the baseload increased by approximately 25 kW.
MDP-3 was the smallest panel, with a baseload of 20 kW and a peaking load of 150 kW.
Similar to MDP-1, this panel indicates elevated energy consumption only when the building
is occupied.
MDP-4 had similar behavior to the other two submeters. The minimum baseload on MDP-4
was 50 kW, with a peak load of 250 kW.
Combining the 15-minute submetered data with the daily submetered data from the main meter
provides the distribution of energy for the three MDPs during the monitored period of November 12
through December 14, 2009 (Figure 3.6).
21
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Distribution of MDP Energy
November 11 - December 14, 2009
Unclassified
20.3%
MDP 1
50.1%
MDP 4
19.2%
MDP 3
10.4%
Figure 3.6. Distribution of MDP Energy During Submetering Period
(Total = 509,176 kWh)
The distribution above indicates that MDP-1 comprises the majority of the energy under the main
meter (50%), followed by MDP-4 (19%), and then MDP-3 (10%). Subtracting the total MDP
submeter energy from the main submeter indicates that 20% of the energy is not metered. The layout
of the submeter locations on the one-line diagram implies that is energy is consumed by the chillers,
but may actually represent discrepancies in the submetering configuration.
Figure 3.7 displays the energy use patterns for the three MDP submeters on a shade plot. On the
shade plot, the hour of the day are represented on the y-axis, and the each day represented by a
vertical stripe consisting of 96 15-minute segments. The energy consumption in each segment is
represented by varying shades of gray. Periods with higher energy consumption are represented by
darker shades of gray, and periods of low energy consumption are represented by light gray. Periods
with missing data are shown as pure white.
22
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
MDP-3 Power Use Patterns
24
22
22
20
20
18
18
16
16
Hour of Day
Hour of Day
MDP-1 Power Use Patterns
24
14
12
10
14
12
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
13 1415 1617 1819 20 2122 23 2425 26 27 282930 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14
13 1415 16 17 1819 20 2122 23 2425 26 27 2829 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 111213 14
Nov
Nov
Day (MAX/MIN =
Dec
576.51/ 210.94 kW)
Day (MAX/MIN =
Dec
174.21/ 0.00 kW)
MDP-4 Power Use Patterns
24
22
20
18
Hour of Day
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
13 1415 1617 1819 20 2122 23 2425 26 27 282930 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14
Nov
Dec
Day (MAX/MIN =
256.51/ 33.79 kW)
Figure 3.7. Power Use Patterns – Submetered MDPs
All three MDP submeters displayed a strong weekday/weekend variation in energy use, and also
show energy use for the college increasing at 6:00 AM and remaining elevated until 10:00 PM. This
elevated energy consumption corresponds to the occupied period of the building.
MDP-1 and MDP-3 both display energy use patterns that indicate some level of cycling equipment
(with intervals of oscillating energy consumption during the unoccupied period). The very regular
electricity consumption observed on MDP-4 indicates that a major portion of this panel is interior
building lighting that operates from 5:00 AM to 10:00 PM.
The interval metering data was also examined to determine the variation across the day in the form of
a daily power profile, as shown in Figures 3.8 through 3.10. The power profile plots display the
minimum, maximum and average power for each 15-minute interval throughout the day. The profile
also displays one standard deviation around the average in the shaded blue portion of the plots. By
comparing the weekend (unoccupied) profile to the weekday (occupied) profile, the energy
consumption resulting from building occupancy can be determined.
23
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
MDP-1 Daily Power Profile - Weekdays
Power (kW)
800
Max
Daily Total: 8718.5 kWh/day
Min
Daily Range: 7213.5 to 10184.1 kWh/day
Avg
600
Avg +/- Stdev
400
200
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Hour Of Day
14
16
18
20
22
24
MDP-1 Daily Power Profile - Weekends
400
Power (kW)
350
Max
Daily Total: 6027.3 kWh/day
Min
Daily Range: 5542.4 to 6537.8 kWh/day
Avg
Avg +/- Stdev
300
250
200
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Hour Of Day
14
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 3.8. MDP-1 Daily Power Profiles
MDP-2 Daily Power Profile - Weekdays
250
200
Max
Daily Total: 1952.8 kWh/day
Min
Daily Range: 1295.6 to 2609.5 kWh/day
Power (kW)
Avg
Avg +/- Stdev
150
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Hour Of Day
14
16
18
20
22
24
MDP-2 Daily Power Profile - Weekends
Power (kW)
150
Max
Daily Total: 1123.6 kWh/day
Min
Daily Range: 688.8 to 1562.5 kWh/day
Avg
100
Avg +/- Stdev
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Hour Of Day
14
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 3.9. MDP-3 Daily Power Profiles
24
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
MDP-4 Daily Power Profile - Weekdays
400
Power (kW)
300
Max
Daily Total: 3460.4 kWh/day
Min
Daily Range: 2372.1 to 4249.6 kWh/day
Avg
Avg +/- Stdev
200
100
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Hour Of Day
14
16
18
20
22
24
MDP-4 Daily Power Profile - Weekends
250
200
Max
Daily Total: 2013.3 kWh/day
Min
Daily Range: 1597.4 to 2431.4 kWh/day
Power (kW)
Avg
Avg +/- Stdev
150
100
50
0
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Hour Of Day
14
16
18
20
22
24
Figure 3.10. MDP-4 Daily Power Profiles
By subtracting the weekend profiles from the weekday profiles, and extrapolating to a year of
operation, the distribution of energy consumed when the building is occupied and unoccupied was
developed (Figure 3.11). Again, the sum of the MDP profiles differs from the total main submetered
data by approximately 20%.
Distribution of MDP Energy by Occupied and Unoccupied Periods
Typical Year November 15, 2008 - November 14, 2009
MDP 1 Energy From
Occupancy
11.0%
Unclassified
18.6%
MDP 4 Baseload Energy
11.6%
MDP 1 Baseload Energy
34.7%
MDP 4 Energy From
Occupancy
14.2%
MDP 3 Energy From
Occupancy
3.4%
MDP 3 Baseload Energy
6.5%
Figure 3.11. Occupied and Unoccupied (Baseload) Period Energy Consumption
(Total = 6,337,982 kWh/year)
25
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
3.2.3. Natural Gas Utility Billing Data
The campus is served by only one natural gas account. Natural gas delivery is provided by NYSEG
under their non-residential small firm gas rate. Natural gas supply is provided by the Empire Natural
Gas Corporation. The campus consumes 85,675 therm/year at a combined cost of $74,837. The
average cost of natural gas at the campus is $0.87/therm (Table 3.3).
Table 3.3. Natural Gas Consumption and Cost
Entire Campus Non-Res Small Firm
Gas Service
Month Days
Oct-08
31
Nov-08
30
Dec-08
40
Jan-09
22
Feb-09
28
Mar-09
31
Apr-09
30
May-09
31
Jun-09
30
Jul-09
31
Aug-09
31
Sep-09
30
Total
365
Average Cost of Gas ($/therm)
Gas
(therms)
2,973
7,743
15,170
21,300
14,771
14,225
6,257
1,058
486
455
405
833
85,675
Delivery
Supply
NYSEG
Empire NG Corp
($)
($)
$
748 $
2,640
$
1,212 $
6,108
$
2,314 $
12,679
$
2,806 $
16,013
$
2,610 $
8,715
$
2,541 $
8,409
$
1,235 $
3,678
$
307 $
630
$
212 $
289
$
211 $
268
$
210 $
238
$
275 $
490
$ 14,680 $
60,157
Total
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
($)
3,388
7,320
14,993
18,819
11,324
10,951
4,913
937
501
479
448
765
74,837
0.87
Natural gas consumption increases dramatically in the winter months, when space heating is needed
(Figure 3.12). The three-pipe nature of the system implies that any summer time natural gas use is not
used for space heating (or re-heat). Summer gas use results from domestic hot water (DHW)
production, and other non-heating loads (such as food preparation).
Figure 3.13 displays the natural gas variation with ambient temperature. The changeover to heating
occurs at 54°F, and above that temperature natural gas use for domestic water and other non-heating
loads is less than 500 therms/month (15 therms/day). During heating operation natural gas
consumption reaches as high as 21,000 therms/month, or 970 therms
/day. Extrapolating the
trendline out to 0°F indicates that a peak heating conditions, the average heating load for the campus
is 3.7 MMBtu/h across the day.
26
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
-
Figure 3.12. Natural Gas Consumption History
FLCC Natural Gas Consumption Variation with Ambient
25000
20000
Gas (therms)
Natural Gas Consumption (therms)
25,000
15000
10000
5000
0
20
30
40
50
60
70
Temperature (F)
Figure 3.13. Natural Gas Consumption Variation with Ambient Temperature
27
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
3.3. Historical Energy Use: Summary & Relevance
From Section 2, we observed that stationary combustion and purchased electricity together accounted
for approximately 37% of FLCC’s total GHG emissions. The disaggregation of energy use performed
in Section 3 indicated that FLCC consumes, on average, 6-7 million kWh of electricity and about
86,000 therms of natural gas annually. While there are seven utility accounts for electricity, the
overwhelming majority of electrical consumption (98%) is through one meter. There is only one
natural gas account.
Analysis of available electrical submetering data indicates a distinct weekday/weekend trend, with a
difference of 7,500-10,000 kWh between the two. There is also a larger annual consumption trend
that is a function of season and class schedules (winter shows higher consumption in general;
December and May – when classes are reduced – show lower consumption). Further analysis of
submetered data indicates that over 90% of campus energy use is temperature-independent (i.e.,
baseload), with the remainder being temperature-dependent. By contrast, natural gas usage is a strong
function of ambient temperature, with consumption varying by almost a factor of two between
warmer and cooler seasons.
These factors suggest that seasonal adjustments to consumption will have a more pronounced effect
on natural gas consumption than on electrical consumption. However, reductions in baseload energy
consumption will be required in order to see a meaningful change in overall energy usage and thereby
on total GHG emissions.
28
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
4. Mitigation Strategies
4.1. Background
In Section 2, it was concluded that FLCC would have to reduce GHG emissions by approximately
200 to 250 MTCO2E per year in order to meet potential interim and long-term emission reduction
goals. In Section 3, we noted that a reduction in baseload energy consumption would be a key driver
in reduced GHG emissions.
4.2. Emission Reduction Strategies
The following is a list of emission reduction strategies that FLCC will consider towards their GHG
emissions reduction goals. These are followed by specific recommendations in text boxes.
Scope 1 Emissions
• College Fleet Vehicles: Consider purchasing hybrid vehicles; create institutional policies
requiring energy-efficient vehicles; recommend fuel efficient rental cars; increase number of
electric utility vehicles to decrease on-campus truck/van use
• Campus Safety Vehicles: More bicycle patrol and electric utility vehicles for on-campus
patrol
• Grounds Equipment: Investigate feasibility of running equipment on biodiesel; diesel
retrofits; electric utility vehicles; continually upgrade equipment with energy-efficient models
when old is replaced; consider purchasing a new, more efficient diesel dump truck; create nomow/low-mow areas; create vegetable garden on campus to use in cafeteria; plant additional
trees where possible; take existing woodlot into account in GHG inventory
• Boilers, Chillers, Emergency Generators: Use energy-efficient models when due for
replacement
• Refrigeration Units: Standardize replacement strategy to include emissions/efficiency as
criteria with new purchases (use existing energy star purchasing policy); try to reduce the
number of small fridge units; create incentives to get rid of fridges; inventory small fridges;
consider establishing employee lounges on each floor with fridge, microwave, etc. (with the
understanding that personal kitchen equip be eliminated from campus)
• Air Conditioning Units: Need institutional backing for thermostat settings to avoid
complaints; need nighttime/occupancy setbacks as follows - Step 1: get 6 programmable
thermostats for heat pumps ($45/per unit); Step 2: hook 6 heat pump thermostats to building
control system ($500/per hook-up); equip each classroom with a thermostat; occupancy
sensors and CO2 sensors in each classroom; retro-commission the building; add window
coverings and/or treatment to help stabilize temperatures.
• Domestic Hot Water (gas): Replace existing tank with solar pre-heating units on roof and ondemand natural gas heaters in various zones of the building – reduce heat loss by: reducing
distance traveled, only heating as needed, capturing heat from sun, etc.; measure/monitor
existing hot water use; use of 3 independent units (1 for locker rooms, 1 for library, 1 for
main bathrooms)
29
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Scope 2 Emissions
• Lighting: Put LED lights in all exit signs; change gym lighting to T5s; install daylight sensors
in hallways; install occupancy sensors for all rooms including hallways and stairwells;
replace all incandescent bulbs with CFL or LED; convert all T12 fixtures to T8; replace gym
metal halide fixtures with high bay T5 fluorescent fixtures
• Plug Loads: Purchase Energy Star-certified computers, monitors, and other IT equipment;
implement and ensure continued operation of computer and monitor power management
features;
• Information Technology: Program PCs into power save modes or utilize the new occupancy
sensor controlled surge bars; use smart strips for electronics; replace desktops with laptops
where practical; consider moving away from personal printers to networked printers; expand
the online library; look for web-based software to reduce server demand; move toward
wireless access; investigate green computing efforts at other institutions; offer more
information to encourage behavior change; create uniform plug load plan; create a checklist
of considerations when dealing with technology (environmental impact, supportability,
energy efficiency- heat/electricity; lifecycle cost; longevity; support cost - human/capital;
impact of equip location); move to thin clients & cloud computing; create more virtual
meetings & trainings; find more efficient light bulbs for projectors; unplug or remove TVs in
classrooms (computers can act as substitutes); determine the feasibility of reducing the
number of copiers in office areas; IT at campus centers should be at the same standard as
main campus.
• Peak Load: Need demand load management; Monitor demand and shed loads to minimize
peak demand; connect equipment that's not currently tied into the main control system
• Air Handling Units: Need to continue installation of variable speed drives (VSDs) on air
conditioning units; access to software to show room occupancy – allow for better control;
consider installing CO2 sensors in rooms; ensure installation of VSDs during renovation of
building with VAV system
• Heating and Cooling: Create a cooling “setback” point, similar to the current heating setback,
and program both for automatic operation; standardize/institutionalize temperature set points,
ie: heating to 68, cooling to 76; calibrate or replace all temperature sensing devices; enable
fan coil unit day/night controls where available, install where possible
• Equipment Replacement: Institutional policy to require ALL replacements to be NEMA
premium efficiency; update purchasing procedures to include specs for energy efficiency
• Building Envelope Tightening: Seal around windows; put window treatments on those
without; install more insulation where possible; install vestibules at entrances to minimize
infiltration of outside temps; thermal image whole building during peak heating season to
identify losses; purchase of monitoring equipment for in-house use; consider replacing roofs
with more energy efficient technology
• Plug Loads: Reduced number of “space heaters”, mini-fridges, coffee makers; buy several
"Kill-A-Watt" units to show people how much energy their office equip. uses; provide more
information to encourage behavior change
• Copiers: Encourage scanning over copying
• Policy: Institutional policy requiring premium efficiency on all replacements of equip. over 1
hp (NEMA standard); need policies of how to deal with technology CHANGE and how to
consider the green components (big picture thinking); institutional policy to turn off
computers when not in use – enforcement will be key
Scope 3 Emissions
30
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recycling: Investigate feasibility of creating a recycling center that can accept clothing,
furniture, household items, etc. from students; create annual electronics recycling drive open
to students and community
Sharecycle: Expand existing program to include the student community
Paper Use: Create a Green Office Certification Program; consider charging for printer use
(esp. in the library); encourage faculty to post hand-outs on Angel instead of paper copies;
continue offering "paperless classroom" training - at opening days?; make sure adjuncts are
involved in the trainings; need electronic signatures to be acceptable on forms; continue
converting forms to electronic format
Water Use: Use of motion-activated and time-release faucets where feasible
IT Purchasing: Consider purchasing remanufactured toner cartridges; consider purchasing
laptops instead of bulky desktops
Teleconferencing/Videoconferencing: Need to make it more user-friendly; make available at
all college campus sites; ensure faculty teaching with these technologies are trained in the
proper pedagogy for using it
Commuting: When renting a vehicle, encourage people to use vehicles that get more than 30
mpg; encourage carpooling through incentives such as premium parking spots; consider
partnering with bus companies to get students a discounted/free pass; create a “guaranteed
ride home” two times a semester; examine working from home strategies; examine the option
of 4-day open campus with 3 days shut down; make sure most classes are offered at campus
centers to reduce frequency of student commuting to main campus
Business Air Travel: Evaluate the cost benefit of driving vs. flying (time, carbon footprint,
cost); encourage train, bus rides
Cafeteria: Use china and silverware; use compostable trash bags; investigate feasibility of
composting cafeteria scraps (cost, time, labor, resources, land, etc.); investigate production of
biodiesel for college equipment use
4.3. Behavior Change
In addition to opportunities related to campus infrastructure, FLCC will consider potential behavioral
changes that could mitigate campus GHG emissions in the following areas:
•
•
•
•
•
Energy Conservation
Water Conservation
Waste Production
Recycling/Food Services
Transportation/Parking
The following is a list of recommendations that can be made to FLCC students, faculty, and staff to
encourage individual behavior change. These recommendations have been divided into “high” and
“medium” potential as a qualitative indication of their net GHG impact.
Actions with high potential:
•
•
Edit, spell and grammar check on screen to reduce printing (Waste Production)
Take only what you can eat in the dining hall or cafeteria and reduce your food waste
(Recycling / Food Services)
31
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Recycle all recyclable materials (Recycling / Food Services)
Refrain from using push-button automated door-opening mechanisms if not needed (Energy
Conservation)
Choose reusable or refillable products instead of disposables; buy durable goods (Waste
Production)
Opt for travel mugs and reusable water bottles (Recycling / Food Services)
Whenever possible, combine activities, meetings and errands into one trip; use conference
calls or schedule meetings back to back (Transportation / Parking)
Accept a broader range of indoor temperatures (Energy Conservation)
When possible, take the stairs instead of the elevator (Energy Conservation)
Use low-flow showerheads and faucets (Water Conservation)
Wash your clothes in warm or cold water; run at a full load (Water Conservation)
File information electronically (Waste Production)
Send documents and invitations electronically (Waste Production)
Buy recycled or recycled-content products, both pre- and post-consumer (Recycling / Food
Services)
Consider options like telecommuting or distance learning (Transportation / Parking)
Dine in, walk to a restaurant, or pack a lunch to avoid unnecessary driving during the day
(Transportation / Parking)
Report all toilet and faucet leaks right away (Water Conservation)
Remove yourself from junk mail and catalog lists (Waste Production)
Turn off lights when you leave a room for more than five minutes; use only as much light as
you need (Energy Conservation)
Turn the water off while shaving or brushing teeth (Water Conservation)
When it's time to buy a new car, choose one that offers good gas mileage and/or choose a
hybrid / alternative fuel vehicle (Transportation / Parking)
Other high-potential conservation opportunities include: powering down computers during periods of
non-use or setting them to “sleep” mode; taking the stairs instead of the elevator; and refraining from
using push-button automated door-opening mechanisms if not needed.
Actions with medium potential
• Purchase, minimally, 30% recycled paper (Waste Production)
• For your old electronics, donate used equipment to schools or other organizations to ensure
reuse and recycling (Recycling / Food Services)
• Keep your car well-tuned (Transportation / Parking)
• Power down computers during periods of non-use, or set them to “sleep” mode, instead of
using screen-savers (Energy Conservation)
• Purchase energy efficient electronics and appliances, including Energy Star products and
energy-efficient fluorescent light bulbs (Energy Conservation)
• Turn off your electronics devices (e.g., television, cell phones and other equipment) when
you are not using them (Energy Conservation)
• Reuse paper, cardboard, containers, plastics, electronics, furniture, and compost (Waste
Production)
• Remove yourself from junk mail and catalog lists (Waste Production)
• Do two-sided printing and copying, or scanning for electronic viewing (Waste Production)
• Publish and share documents on line (Waste Production)
32
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Use reusable bags / containers for shopping (Recycling / Food Services)
Avoid individual bottled beverages, use pitchers of tap water instead (Water Conservation)
Repair all toilet and faucet leaks right away (Water Conservation)
Reuse envelopes, folders and the blank side of a printed sheet of paper (Waste Production)
Have campus landscaped with low-water-using plants (Water Conservation)
Buy organic, sustainably-grown foods (Recycling / Food Services)
Design documents/ shrink images to minimize paper consumption (Waste Production)
Buy locally grown, seasonal food and products when available (Recycling / Food Services)
Use rechargeable batteries (Waste Production)
Use a power strip that can be turned off when you're done using your electronics (Energy
Conservation)
Use sustainable, “green” products (Recycling / Food Services)
Choose to repair items rather than discarding them (Waste Production)
Other items to consider and/or implement include: overcoming the difficulty in purchasing ecofriendly goods or services that are typically more expensive; increasing recycling programs; offering
more administrative and academics-related documents in an online format; and discontinuing
outsourcing to non-local suppliers.
4.4. RECs and Offsets
Beyond implementing internal emission reduction projects, FLCC may need to purchase Renewable
Energy Credits/Certificates (RECs) for green power and/or offsets to mitigate a portion of its
emissions. Offsets include carbon credits from voluntary and regulatory markets, and carbon
allowances under regulatory markets. Purchasing RECs and/or offsets would allow FLCC to mitigate
emissions without having to implement infrastructure or behavioral changes. However, purchasing
RECs/offsets provides no return on investment. In addition, RECs/offsets are projected to become
more costly under expected future regulatory programs. For these reasons, in most instances, RECs
and offsets will be a lower priority than implementing emission reduction projects.
Despite this, FLCC recognizes that offsets can and do play a vital role in providing a means to
achieve immediate emissions reductions in a cost-effective manner. The College also recognizes that
offsets also provide an opportunity for additional research and development in addressing climate
change. As such, FLCC has determined that there are instances when it furthers the dual mission of
achieving climate and educational gains to participate in offset projects, especially those which will
have a local impact.
4.4.1. Renewable Energy Credits or Certificates (RECs)
RECs, also known as Renewable Obligation Certificates (ROCs), Tradeable Renewable Certificates
(TRCs), Green Tags, or Green Certificates, represent electricity produced from a qualifying
renewable energy technology of a qualifying vintage (Note: The “vintage” of a REC is the date that
the electricity generation associated with the REC was measured by the system operator or utility
meter at the generator site; Green-e.org, 2010). A REC is a generic term for a financial instrument
reflecting the attributes of renewable energy independently of the actual electricity. The certificate
can be presented in either physical (i.e., paper) or more commonly, electronic format. The standard
unit used internationally to measure RECs is a megawatt-hour (MWh). For tracking and recording
33
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
purposes, each REC has an identifying number linking it back to the actual electric generating device
from which it was produced.
Although in most instances the renewable energy is additional to what would have been generated
otherwise in absence of the REC, this is not necessarily always the case. Moreover, since the
renewable generation may be meeting increased demand,
it also does not necessarily represent a reduction in any
Renewable Energy Credits or
existing carbon emissions. For example, a wind farm
Certificates (RECs)
may produce more electricity in an area – adding to the
total amount of electricity generated – but without
displacing any of the existing carbon-based electricity
A REC is a unique and exclusive
generation, or reducing net emissions. In the absence of a
proof that one megawatt-hour
limit to the total amount of electricity produced or a way
(MWh) of electricity has been
to track actual generation displacement, it is unclear as to
generated from a renewable
whether the renewable energy produced would result in
resource.
any actual reduction in emissions.
For these reasons, RECs are not the same as carbon offsets and the two terms should not be used
interchangeably. Like offsets, RECs are energy-related tradable commodities, and often purchased by
companies to represent — and claim the use of — renewable electricity. Unlike offsets, REC markets
do not have the same additionality requirements of offsets. However, renewable energy projects can
provide environmental advantages including reduced land and water impacts and improved air
quality. The purchase of RECs can also encourage the development of additional renewable energy
projects.
RECs can play an important role in FLCC’s path to carbon neutrality, as a way to reduce the climate
impact of Scope 2 emissions (indirect emissions from purchased electricity), which contribute almost
4/5ths of FLCC’s GHG emissions (see Chapter 2). The procurement of RECs to pair with electricity
purchases is a common way to secure and document the use of renewable energy.
As long as RECs are sold only once, sufficient tracking mechanisms are in place, and calculated gridaverage emissions figures appropriately account for them, RECs can provide a valid way of obtaining
zero-emissions electricity in calculating GHG inventories. To both ensure high-quality and support
continued improvement, FLCC will procure only those RECs certified by a reputable organization.
Renewable Energy Offerings of FLCC’s Local Electric Distribution Company
FLCC purchases its electricity from Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E), a division of Iberdrola USA
based in Rochester, NY. Through its “Wind Energy” program, RG&E allows institutional and
commercial customers to acquire power of 200-600 kWh/month from wind turbines through the
purchase of credits. These credits enable RG&E to purchase wind-generated electricity produced at a
wind farm in New York State or the mid-Atlantic region, and have it delivered to the New York State
Independent System Operator (NYISO) grid.
Purchases can be made in 100 kWh blocks, and each purchase results in a transfer of the
environmental attributes of the wind energy to the customer. RG&E will send a signed certificate on
an annual basis in the electric account holder’s name. The “kWh certified” shows the amount of wind
energy delivered to the NYISO during the previous year and the amount of Wind Energy credits
purchased. (RG&E, 2010).
34
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
In addition to RG&E, Community Energy (CEI) has RECs available for sale in an amount to cover
the Scope 2 emissions associated with purchase of electricity. The RECs would be from Green-e
certified wind that is sourced from anywhere in the U.S. A 3-year contract entered into effective
February 2010 would be priced as follows:
$1.43 per MWh in the 1st year
$1.67 per MWh in the 2nd year
$2.11 per MWh in the 3rd year
Direct Procurement of Renewable Energy
FLCC could enter into a long-term renewable power purchase agreement as an alternative to buying
RECs. Renewable energy development goes much deeper than protecting the environment. The
development and operation of the wind project creates temporary construction jobs and long-term
management jobs, again providing an economic co-benefit.
Renewable Energy Requirements in New York State
In 2004, the New York State Public Service Commission (PSC) voted to adopt a Renewable Portfolio
Standard (RPS) to increase the proportion of renewable electricity used by New York consumers
from the 2004 baseline of 19.3% to at least 25% by 2013. In establishing the RPS, the PSC noted that
the primary benefits expected from implementing the RPS Program include:
1. Diversifying the generation resource mix to improve energy security and independence;
2. Attracting the economic benefits from renewable resource generators, manufacturers, and
installers to New York State; and
3. Improving New York's environment by reducing air emissions and other adverse
environmental impacts of electricity generation.
In December 2009, the PSC revised the RPS goal upwards to 30 percent by 2015. The New York
State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA) is responsible for the acquisition of
an annual target of 10.4 MWh in 2015 (NYSERDA, 2010).
4.4.2. Carbon Offsets
A carbon offset is a reduction or removal of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) GHG emissions that is
used to compensate for or offset emissions from other activities. Offset projects are those that reduce
GHG emissions outside of an entity’s boundary and
generate credits that can be purchased by that entity to
Carbon Offset
meet its own targets for reducing its GHG emissions.
Use of offsets is possible because climate change is a
non-localized problem; greenhouse gases spread
A carbon offset is a reduction or
evenly throughout the atmosphere, so reducing them
removal of carbon dioxide
anywhere contributes to overall climate protection.
Generally, offsets fall into two categories: 1)
emissions reductions or avoidance, such as replacing a
diesel generator with solar panels, and 2)
35
equivalent (CO2e) GHG
emissions that is used to
compensate for or offset
emissions from other activities.
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
sequestration, or removing GHGs from the atmosphere, such as planting trees that will absorb CO2 as
they grow. There are many different types of projects that generate offsets in both categories.
Offsets are a potentially effective mechanism for complementing internal reduction activities, but
cannot replace them. While internal efforts to directly reduce their GHG emissions focused on
planning, funding, and initiating avoidance, reduction, and replacement programs are a higher priority
and should be evaluated first, the ACUPCC permits investments in offsets to be made as soon as the
internal activities are initiated.
A common objection to offsetting is that it does not actually reduce an institution’s baseline
emissions; offsets do little to drive the internal business process innovations and systems-level
changes needed. Moreover, some critics say, offsets may lead to complacency or “absolve climate
guilt,” in turn forestalling the necessary commitments to new behaviors, policies and business
practices. Additionally, purchasing offsets provide no return on investment and are projected to
become more costly under future regulatory programs. Finally, since achieving carbon neutrality is
not a one-time accomplishment, offsets must be purchased for each period to which they are intended
to be applied.
FLCC may invest in offsets, develop its own offset projects, invest directly in the offset projects of
others or purchase credits generated from offset projects. Offsets provide an effective way of
achieving interim targets and climate neutrality, measuring the cost/value of carbon reduction
activities, and creating a financial incentive for reducing internal emissions.
When done correctly, investment in high quality carbon offsets is scientifically valid and results in the
absolute reduction of GHG emissions to the atmosphere. To ensure offset quality, the ACUPCC has
adopted a common Voluntary Carbon Offset Protocol (“the Protocol”) to guide institutions in the
evaluation and investments of offsets. The protocol establishes clear guidelines for higher education
institutes to invest in the purchase of offsets. An accompanying document, “Investing in Carbon
Offsets: Guidelines for ACUPCC Institutions” (“the Guidelines”), was issued in November 2008. The
Protocol provides guidance to institutions evaluating investments in offsets to help determine whether
or not to invest, when to do so, and what to look for in an offset to ensure they are credible, highquality and effective – that is, they are real, measurable and permanent. The Protocol and Guidelines
also encourage institutions to view offsets as a short-term tool to address the gap to a climate neutral
future.
Required Attributes of Carbon Offsets
The ACUPCC Protocol and Guidelines articulate key principles of high-quality offsets as follows:
1. Real: Offsets are sourced from tangible physical projects with evidence that they have or will
imminently occur.
2. Additionality: The principle that only those projects that would not have happened anyway
should be recognized as carbon credits, i.e., reductions are “surplus” offsets that would not
have occurred under “business as usual” and should not cause leakage or additional emissions
elsewhere.
3. Transparent: All project details are provided, including, among others, type, duration,
standards, measurements, location and price, are all known and made clear to the offset
purchaser and other stakeholders.
36
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
4. Measurable: Reductions are objectively quantifiable by peer-reviewed methodologies within
acceptable standard margins of error.
5. Permanent: Reduction streams are unlikely to be reversed, with safeguards to ensure that
reversals will be timely replaced or compensated.
6. Verifiable: Performance of a particular emissions reduction project is monitored by an
independent third-party with appropriate local and sector expertise to assess the expected or
actual emissions reductions.
7. Synchronous: Offset flows are matched to emission flow time periods with rigorous and
conservative accounting that designates boundaries and baseline calculations.
8. Leakage: A net change in anthropogenic emissions by sources of greenhouse gases (GHG)
which occurs outside the project boundary, and which is measurable and attributable to the
project activity.
9. Registered: A third party recording of ownership of an offset that enables clarity in
identifying the chain of custody of credits.
10. Double Counting: Double counting occurs when a carbon emissions reduction is counter
toward multiple offsetting goals or targets, whether voluntary or regulated. It may occur
whenever carbon reductions are achieved in one point on a supply chain and multiple points
on the chain try to take ownership of the reductions.
11. Retired: The removal of an allowance or offset from the market, after which it cannot be
resold or used to permit emitting, thereby reducing overall emitting.
From FLCC’s perspective, it is also important that the agreement to fund or procure carbon credits is
enforceable, i.e., backed by legal instruments that define offsets’ creation, provide for transparency
and ensure exclusive ownership.
Additional Considerations for Offset Attributes: Geography and Co-Benefits
The ACUPCC Protocol does not proscribe a preference as to the location of offset projects; however,
it does point to the relative merits of different geographical projects locations in relation to some of
the principles outlined in the Protocol, including: educational value, transparency, co-benefits, and the
service mission of higher education.
For FLCC, the geographic location of a project will provide advantages in meeting these aspects of
the Protocol. Having direct contact and the ability to meet often and develop personal relationships
with project participants will increase FLCC’s ability to ensure that such projects provide climate
gains while ensuring sustainable results. FLCC will consider engaging in projects that are in
proximity to its domestic campus and also projects that are in international locations where we have
study abroad programs.
Carbon Markets
The carbon markets are growing rapidly. Over the past several years, the voluntary carbon markets
have not only become an opportunity for citizen consumer action, but also an alternative source of
carbon finance and an incubator for carbon market
innovation.
Voluntary credit prices increased a
further 20% from 2007 to 2008,
In 2008 the market was responsible for offsetting
resulting
in a total market value of
123.4 million metric tons of carbon dioxide
US$705
million
equivalent. The voluntary carbon markets were
37
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
estimated to be valued at US$705 million in 2008, more than twice their value in 2007 ($335
million). While the OTC market traded a smaller share of the transaction volume than the CCX, most
of this value increase was driven by OTC credits, as they traded at a price premium of 66% in 2008
over CCX credits. Generally speaking, the price of a carbon offset follows the principles of free
market economics – supply and demand. If demand for a certain project type or a project input is
high, the price of that project will go up and vice versa. In 2008, the price for a carbon offset ranged
from $2.00 per metric ton CO2e (tCO2e) to $33.00 per metric ton CO2e (EM 2009). These variations
are dependent on the type of project, the third party standard used and the offset provider (retailer,
broker, aggregator, developer). The average price of a voluntary carbon credit transacted on the OTC
market was $7.34/tCO2e in 2008, up 22% from $6.10/tCO2e in 2007 and up 79% from $4.10/tCO2e
in 2006. This compares to an average price of $4.43/tCO2e on the CCX.
Claims about carbon offset co-benefits, project type, and project location have no direct connection to
the quality of a metric ton CO2 reduced (the benefit of a ton of CO2 reduced is the same whether it
happens with a renewable energy project in the region or a reforestation project in Lebanon), but
additional benefits, such as habitat preservation, sustainable development, etc., can increase the price
of an offset because these additional benefits increase the quality of the surrounding environment and
are generally more marketable.
Assessing Carbon Offset Project Types
Carbon offset project types generally fall into three categories: 1) renewable energy, 2) energy
efficiency projects, and 3) land use/land change projects like reforestation and avoided deforestation.
Landfill gas destruction and agricultural methane destruction are also common projects available on
the market today. FLCC may choose to meet its carbon offset needs by authorizing a Request for a
Proposal (RFP) that is distributed to a selected list of offset providers. The RFP would include
FLCC’s requirements for its offset portfolio such as criteria for project type, location, or specific cobenefits The RFP process may provide FLCC with better leverage in negotiations. However, FLCC
may also choose to bypass the RFP process by simply contacting a provider to acquire a specific
quote for carbon offsets.
Assessing Carbon Offset Providers
There are five main types of offset sellers: 1) project developers 2) retailers/wholesalers, 3) brokers,
4) aggregators, and 5) utility companies. Each type offers different value-added services, from
providing messaging plans and outreach services, to facilitating faster, larger scale transactions.
Several organizations provide services typical of each type of provider. FLCC’s offset provider
choice should be based on the credibility of the organization, their ability to meet your standards and
requirements, and their ability to provide the best service for your needs. After deciding the volume
of emissions that will be offset, FLCC will determine the level of services that will be needed from its
provider, be it small or large scale purchasing, a diversified portfolio or outreach and communication
consulting. When evaluating a provider inquire about third party standards, their method for offset
retirement, and their organizational auditing procedures.
FLCC will consult various resources to determine and assess its offset providers including:
• the Carbon Offset Provider Evaluation Matrix from Carbon Concierge2;
2
http://www.carbonconcierge.com/.
38
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
•
•
•
Carbon Offset Research & Education (CORE) initiative of the Stockholm Environment
Institute (SEI) which has lists of Studies that Rate Offset Providers and a Comprehensive List
of Offset Providers3;
Carbon Catalog, a website with a directory of carbon offsets, listing and rating
offset providers and offset projects worldwide. Carbon Catalog is an independent service
which does not sell offsets or have commercial relationships with providers. The listings and
ratings follow transparent guidelines. Carbon Catalog. Carbon Catalog was founded by
Gideon Greenspan and launched in September 20074;
CarbonOffsetList.org, a website maintained by the Environmental Defense Fund that lists a
set of offset projects that they reviewed and recommend as real, additional and verified. 5
Table 4.1 Listing of Preferred Offset Providers Which Sell to Businesses
Type of Offset
Provider
Type of Offsets
BS= Bio-sequestration
EE= Energy Efficiency
GS= Geo-sequestration
MC= Methane Capture*
RE= Renewable Energy
TR= Transportation
Customers
U.S.
Project aggregator,
project developer
BS, EE, RE, MC
Business
NP
U.S.
Retailer
RE, EE, BS
Business,
individuals
Climate Trust
NP
U.S.
Retailer, project
developer
RE, EE, BS, MC
Business,
individuals
Community Energy
Inc
FP
U.S.
Retailer
RE
Business,
individuals
Conservation
International
NP
U.S.
Conservation charity,
offers offsets
BS
Business,
individuals
EcoSecurities
FP
International
Project developer,
project aggregator
RE, GS, MC, EE
Business and
government
NativeEnergy
FP
U.S.
Retailer
RE
Business,
individuals
Nature
Conservancy
NP
U.S.
Retailer
BS
Business,
government
Sterling Planet
FP
U.S.
Retailer
BS, EE, RE, MC
Business,
university,
individual
Terra Pass
FP
U.S.
Retailer, project
developer
RE, EE
Business,
individuals
Name and URL
of Company
Forprofit
or
nonprofit
HQ
Location
Blue Source
FP
Carbonfund.org
3
http://sei-international.org/; http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/consumer/OffsetRatings.html; and
http://www.co2offsetresearch.org/consumer/Providers.html.
4
http://www.carboncatalog.org/; http://www.carboncatalog.org/providers/;
http://www.carboncatalog.org/projects/; and http://www.carboncatalog.org/for-providers/.
5
http://innovation.edf.org/page.cfm?tagid=23994
39
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
4.5. Recommendations
Specific project recommendations are provided below. Energy cost savings are based on utility rates
of $0.87 per therm of natural gas and $0.094 per kWh of electricity. Implementation of these projects
is expected to allow FLCC to achieve an interim goal of 10% below baseline (FY 2000) emissions by
2020, and carbon neutrality by 2030 (Figure 4.1).
Design Standards for New Construction
Project Type
Demand Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
LEED Policy for New Construction
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Require LEED certification for new construction, and commit to exceeding NYS
Energy Code by at least 20% based on New York State Executive Order 111.
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
$32,000
-
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
94
Annual Energy Savings
210,600 kWh; 14,080 therms
Behavior Change
Project Type
Demand Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
Conservation-Minded Behavior Change
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Project Metrics
FLCC will initiate a sustainability pledge program for students and faculty/staff
to encourage conservation-minded behaviors. The program will be informed by
medium to high ranked behavior changes described in Section 4.3. FLCC will
provide seed money for implementing this program and raising awareness of
the program through outreach efforts. It is targeted that the program will result
in an overall reduction in energy usage of at least 5% below 2008 levels.
Simple Payback (years)
1
Annual Energy Cost Savings
$37,650
Project Cost
$40,000
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
437
Annual Energy Savings
354,550 kWh; 4,970 therms
Quantification and monitoring are key to ensuring the effectiveness of the FLCC behavior change
program.
40
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
•
•
•
For quantification, one approach is to use a survey: isolate a specific behavior change
measure (e.g., from among those listed under “high potential” and “medium potential” in
Section 4.3); identify the degree to which this measure has been implemented by FLCC
faculty, students, and staff; and identify the willingness of those who have not yet
implemented this measure, to do so in the immediate future. Application of these percentages
to estimates of energy usage and GHG emissions per unit of usage will provide an estimate of
total energy saved and GHG emissions reduced.
For monitoring, the best way to verify effectiveness of a behavior change program will be
analysis of metering data before and after implementation of the program, in the form of
energy intensity per FTE and per GSF; the degree of intensity reduction being correlated with
the degree of effectiveness of the program.
It is possible that external factors could add to the value of FLCC’s behavior change program.
As an example, the California Public Utilities Commission recently ruled that utilities in the
state could add gains from behavior change programs to their energy-efficiency goals. If
properly implemented, this creates an incentive for the utility to encourage its customers to
reduce their energy usage. While still in its early stages, the success of programs resulting
from this ruling may lead to widespread adoption in other states including New York.
Heating, Ventilating, and Air Conditioning (HVAC)
Project Type
Demand Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
HVAC Energy Conservation Measures
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Project Metrics
Implement energy conservation measures recommended in NYSERDA (2008)
Energy Efficiency Study. These include: installing a kitchen hood controller
(ECM 1); implementing temperature adjustments (ECM 2a); stopping
unoccupied ventilation (ECM 3b); installing a demand control ventilation
system (ECM 3c); operating variable speed drives on main loop pumps (ECM
5); operating variable speed drives on multi zone units (ECM 6); reduce
airflows on AC-1 and AC-3 (ECM 8)
Simple Payback (years)
2
Annual Energy Cost Savings
$110,620
Project Cost
$220,900
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
503
Annual Energy Savings
872,300 kWh, 32,900 Therms
Retrocommissioning
Project Type
Demand-Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
Retrocommissioning
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
41
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Project Description
Project Metrics
Systematic investigation, planning and implementation of operational and
maintenance improvements to optimize main building performance and bring
the building up to the design intentions of its current usage. Expected annual
savings of approximately to 10% in energy, cost, and GHG.
Simple Payback (years)
<1
Annual Energy Cost Savings
$68,660
Project Cost
$43,830
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
318
Annual Energy Savings
709,090 kWh, 9933 therms
Heat Pumps
Project Type
Demand-Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
Heat Pumps
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Installation of localized heat pumps for targeted thermal comfort
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
(Increase)
Project Cost
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
Annual Energy Savings (MMBtu);
(Increase) (kWh)
N/Ap
($5,435)
N/Ap
33 (net reduction:
CO2E of kWh less CO2E of mmBtu)
995 MMBtu
(79,212 kWh)
Lighting
Project Type
Demand Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
Interior Lighting Fixture Retrofit
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Retrofit existing T-12 and T-8 fluorescent fixtures with High efficiency T-5
fixtures, as documented in Lighting Assessment in Appendix A.
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
15
$33,680
$503,000
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
133
Annual Energy Savings
358,330 kWh, 0 Therms
42
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Project Type
Demand Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
Interior Lighting Controls – Occupancy Sensors
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Install occupancy sensors in areas consisting of corridors, mechanical rooms,
kitchen and dining, storage, and select classrooms and offices to automatically
turn off lighting during periods of no occupancy..
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
3
$8,204
$22,500
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
32
Annual Energy Savings
87,280 kWh, 0 Therms
Project Type
Demand-Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
Exterior Lighting Upgrades
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Upgrading of exterior parking lot lighting from metal halide to LED.
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
9
$4,783
$43,830
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
19
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
50,883
Plug Loads – Information Technology
Project Type
Demand-Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
Information Technology – Server Virtualization
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Maximization of physical server resources through operation of multiple
independent virtual systems on a single physical computer. The use of fewer
physical resources leads to lower energy, cost, and GHG emissions.
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
20
$25,016
$500,000
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
87
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
266,124
43
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Project Type
Demand-Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
Information Technology – Energy Star Power Management
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
(1) Use of Energy Star-compliant power management settings on capable
computers
(2) Purchase of Energy Star computers as replacement for non-capable
computers
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
18
$22,839
$410,300
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
86
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
262,666
Project Type
Demand-Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
Information Technology – Printers and Copiers
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Use of network printers and copiers instead of “personal” or stand-alone
versions. Reallocation of existing resources as opposed to purchase of new
systems, hence no significant project cost or payback.
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
N/Ap
$301
N/Ap
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
1.1
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
3,207
Project Type
Demand-Side Energy Reduction
Project Title
Information Technology – Behavior Change
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Development and implementation of informational campaign on energy use for
computing
Project Metrics
Project Type
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
N/Ap
$622
N/Ap
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
2.2
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
6,620
Demand-Side Energy Reduction
44
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Project Title
Plug Load Reduction – Behavior Change
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Behavioral change to remove plug loads from campus; these include, but are
not limited to: refrigerators; coffee makers; microwave ovens; space heaters;
window air conditioning units and water coolers.
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
N/Ap
$4,721
N/Ap
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
17
Annual Energy Savings (kWh)
50,221
Transportation Management
Project Type
Transportation Management
Project Title
Transportation Policy Implementation
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Project Metrics
1. Priority Parking and Rates for Low-Emission Vehicles
2. No-Idling Policy
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
N/Ap
N/Ap
N/Ap
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
502
Annual Energy Savings
N/Ap
Additional measures to evaluate and improve transportation management on and around the FLCC
campus include (a) completion of a biannual transportation survey by students, faculty, and staff; and
(b) establishment of a comprehensive web portal with transportation schedules and tips to effect
behavior change.
Waste Management
Project Type
Waste Management
Project Title
Food Waste Campus Composting
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Installation of Earth Tub in-place composting vessel.
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
N/Ap
45
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
N/Ap
$73,275
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
7.1
Annual Energy Savings
N/Ap
Project Type
Waste Management
Project Title
Conversion of Waste Oil to Biodiesel
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
Installation of partially automated batch biodiesel processor (BioPro 190).
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
N/Ap
N/Ap
$17,452
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
12.7
Annual Energy Savings
N/Ap
Project Type
Waste Management
Project Title
Waste Minimization Plan
Timeline
0-5 years (near term)
Project Description
FLCC will develop a comprehensive Waste Minimization Plan to decrease
emissions from landfilled solid waste by 30% by 2015 relative to baseline (FY
2000) levels.
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
N/Ap
N/Ap
N/Ap
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
N/Ap
Annual Energy Savings
N/Ap
Carbon Sequestration by On-Campus Trees
Project Type
Carbon Sequestration
Project Title
Conservation of Green Space
Timeline
Ongoing
Project Description
Maintenance and potential expansion of existing tree inventory on FLCC
campus.
46
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
N/Ap
N/Ap
N/Ap
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
183
Annual Energy Savings
N/Ap
FLCC has also recorded the number of trees added, removed, and transplanted – as well as acres of
woods saved – as a result of campus improvements. Taken together, these activities provide a net
GHG reduction of <1 MTCO2E annually.
Purchased RECs and Carbon Credits
Project Type
Offsets
Project Title
Purchased RECs
Timeline
5-10 years (medium term)
Project Description
Purchase RECs to offset remaining electricity emissions, assuming REC price
of $2/MWh.
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
N/Ap
N/Ap
$13,400 annually
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
2,183
Annual Energy Savings
6,70 0,000 kWh offset
Project Type
Offsets
Project Title
Purchase carbon credits
Timeline
10-20 years (long term)
Project Description
Purchase carbon credits to offset remaining emissions other than those from
purchased electricity assuming a carbon credit price of $20/MTCO2E.
Project Metrics
Simple Payback (years)
Annual Energy Cost Savings
Project Cost
N/Ap
N/Ap
$125,000 annually
Annual GHG reduction (MTCO2E)
6,312
Annual Energy Savings
N/Ap
47
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
FLCC Stabilization Wedge Diagram
12,000
11,000
Baseline Year
(FY 2000)
Business-As-Usual →→
10,000
Annual GHG Emissions (MTCO2E)
9,000
8,000
Interior Lighting & Control Upgrades
7,000
Exterior Lighting Upgrades
IT - Server Virtualization
6,000
IT - Energy Star Power Management
IT - Printers and Copiers
IT Behavior Change & Plug Load Reduction
5,000
HVAC and Retrocommissioning
10% Goal (7,345
MTCO2E by 2020 )
Heat Pumps
4,000
LEED NC
Transportation Policy
3,000
General Behavior Change
Composting
2,000
Waste Oil to Biodiesel
Carbon Sequestration by On-Campus Trees
1,000
RECs
Carbon Credits
Net Emissions
0
Figure 4.1. FLCC Stabilization Wedge Diagram
48
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
5. Education, Research, and Awareness/Communication
5.1. Background
The ACUPCC asks signatories to commit to taking “actions to make climate neutrality and
sustainability a part of the curriculum and other educational experience for all students.” ACUPCC
guidance recognizes that each school will make its own determination of how to fulfill this part of the
Commitment. Furthermore, participating institutions will (1) find their own creative and unique
means of doing so; (2) develop a means of reviewing progress and expanding their reach over time;
and (3) share their efforts with other signatories so that all of the institutions will be able to meet the
ultimate goal to have graduates that can help all of society restore the earth’s climate to a safe level
and achieve sustainability over several generations. (ACUPCC, 2009).
This section of the CAP describes FLCC’s current educational offerings (curricular and co-curricular)
related to climate change and sustainability. It also describes planned actions to make climate action
and sustainability a part of the curriculum and other educational experience for all students. Finally,
this section explains how the implementation of the ACUPCC will be integrated into FLCC’s
educational efforts (e.g., having students or classes update the GHG inventory), as well as how the
entire campus community, including alumni, will be made aware of FLCC’s participation in, and
progress toward, implementing the ACUPCC.
5.2. Educational Offerings: Curricular
FLCC worked with its faculty, staff, and students to identify how its sustainability curriculum can
support the CAP effort. Specifically, the College considered the following areas, based on ACUPCC
guidance:
•
•
•
•
Relevant course offerings
Relevant course requirements
Pedagogical methods
Specific actions
5.2.1. Relevant Course Offerings
The following topics regarding coursework mandatory for the completion of a degree program and
elective at FLCC were reviewed as part of the educational component of the CAP. FLCC’s efforts to
address these topics are provided below each item in italics font.
a. The interdependence of humans and the environment
Conservation and Horticulture:
CON 100: Introduction to Environmental Conservation
CON 110: Sustainable Earth
CON 202: Ecology
CON 203: Seminar in Environmental Conservation
49
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
CON 214: Fisheries Management
CON 216: Wildlife Management
CON 221 & 222: Black Bear Management I & II
CON 246: Limnology
HRT 110: Introduction to Horticulture
HRT 130: Introduction to Floriculture
HRT 200: Integrated Pest Management
Social Sciences:
SOC 110: Social Problems
PSY 100: Introduction to Psychology
PSY 215/ SCI 215: Biological Psychology
PSY 220: Abnormal Psychology
Physical Education:
PE 212: Health
PE 165: Oriental Healing Arts
PE 150: Camping
PE 250: Wilderness Camping
PE 112: Yoga
Massage Therapy:
MAS 210: Shiatsu II
Humanities:
ENG 215: Literature and the Environment
HON 100: Honors Seminar I – The Hearth Project
HON 200: Honors Seminar II – Honors Writers Retreat
Science and Technology:
BIO 110: Fundamentals of Human Anatomy & Physiology
BIO 118: Contemporary Biology I
BIO 121 & 122: General Biology I & II
BIO 171: Human Anatomy & Physiology I
SCI 137: Chaos Theory
SCI 200: Global Ecosystems
Programs:
The Honors Program
b. How to assess the effects on humans and on the biosphere of human population dynamics;
energy extraction, production and use; and other human activities such as agriculture,
manufacturing, transportation, building and recreation
Conservation and Horticulture:
AGR 100: Soil Science
CON 101: Soils, Waters, and Forests
CON 103: Environmental Science
CON 110: Sustainable Earth
CON 202: Ecology
50
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
CON 203: Seminar in Environmental Conservation
CON 214: Fisheries Management
CON 216: Wildlife Management
CON 221 & 222: Black Bear Management I & II
CON 228: Small Woodlot Management
CON 231 & 232: Conservation Law Enforcement I & II
CON 246: Limnology
CON 260: Nature Interpretation
HRT 200: Integrated Pest Management
WFS 130: Wildland Fire Suppression
Social Sciences:
PSY 215/ SCI 215: Biological Psychology
Physical Education:
PE 212: Health
Science and Technology:
BIO 118 & 119: Contemporary Biology I & II
BIO 121 & 122: General Biology I & II
BIO 171: Human Anatomy & Physiology I
CHM 102: Introduction to Chemistry
CHM 121 & 122: General Chemistry I & II
PHY 101: Introduction to Physics
SCI 137: Chaos Theory
SCI 200: Global Ecosystems
TECH 101 & 104: Materials & Processes I & II
c. The relationship of population, consumption, culture, social equity and the environment
Conservation and Horticulture:
CON 110: Sustainable Earth
CON 203: Seminar in Environmental Conservation
Social Sciences:
SOC 110: Social Problems
HUS 204 & 205: Field Experience I & II
PSY 100: Introduction to Psychology
Physical Education:
PE 212: Health
Humanities:
ENG 215: Literature and the Environment
HON 100: Honors Seminar I – The Hearth Project
HON 200: Honors Seminar II – Honors Writers Retreat
Science and Technology:
BIO 121: General Biology I
SCI 137: Chaos Theory
51
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Programs:
The Honors Program
d. How to apply principles of sustainable development in the context of their professional
activities
Conservation and Horticulture:
CON 214: Fisheries Management
CON 216: Wildlife Management
CON 219: Introduction to Aquaculture
CON 221 & 222: Black Bear Management I & II
HRT 110: Introduction to Horticulture
HRT 111: Tree Culture & Maintenance
HRT 130: Introduction to Floriculture
HRT 200: Integrated Pest Management
HRT 201: Landscape Design I
HRT 202: Landscape Construction & Maintenance
HRT 204: Plant Propagation & Nursery Management
HRT 223: Hort Topics: Organic Land Care; Landscape Design II
VIT 105: Basic Viticulture Techniques
VIT 200: Vineyard Management
Social Sciences:
PSY 215/ SCI 215: Biological Psychology
PSY 220: Abnormal Psychology
Physical Education:
PE 212: Health
PE 165: Oriental Healing Arts
PE 150: Camping
PE 250: Wilderness Camping
PE 112: Yoga
Massage Therapy:
MAS 220: Law and Ethics
Science and Technology:
BIO 110: Fundamentals of Human Anatomy & Physiology
BIO 118: Contemporary Biology I
BIO 171: Human Anatomy & Physiology I
SCI 200: Global Ecosystems
TECH 101 & 104: Materials & Processes I & II
TECH 130: Construction Materials
TECH 244: Residential Design & Drafting
Visual and Performing Arts:
ART 106 & 212: Ceramics I & II
ART 206: Sculpture II
ART 209 & 210: Print Making I & II
52
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
COM 124: Television Production II
Programs:
Nursing Program
e. Technical, design, scientific and institutional strategies and techniques that foster sustainable
development, promote energy and natural resource efficiency and conservation, prevent and
control the generation of pollution and waste, remediate environmental problems, and
preserve biological diversity
Conservation and Horticulture:
AGR 100: Soil Science
CON 101: Soils, Waters & Forests
CON 103: Environmental Science
CON 190: Field Camp
CON 202: Ecology
CON 203: Seminar in Environmental Conservation
CON 214: Fisheries Management
CON 216: Wildlife Management
CON 219: Introduction to Aquaculture
CON 221 & 222: Black Bear Management I & II
CON 228: Small Woodlot Management
CON 246: Limnology
CON 260: Nature Interpretation
HRT 110: Introduction to Horticulture
HRT 111: Tree Culture & Maintenance
HRT 130: Introduction to Floriculture
HRT 200: Integrated Pest Management
HRT 201: Landscape Design I
HRT 202: Landscape Construction & Maintenance
HRT 204: Plant Propagation & Nursery Management
HRT 223: Hort Topics: Organic Land Care; Landscape Design II
VIT 105: Basic Viticulture Techniques
VIT 200: Vineyard Management
WFS 130: Wildland Fire Suppression
Social Sciences:
HUS 102: Human Services in Contemporary America
Physical Education:
PE 212: Health
PE 150: Camping
PE 250: Wilderness Camping
Science and Technology:
CHM 102: Introduction to Chemistry
CHM 121 & 122: General Chemistry I & II
PHY 101: Introduction to Physics
SCI 200: Global Ecosystems
TECH 101 & 104: Materials & Processes I & II
53
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
TECH 130: Construction Materials
TECH 244: Residential Design & Drafting
f.
Social, cultural, legal and governmental frameworks for guiding environmental management
and sustainable development
Conservation and Horticulture:
CON 231 & 232: Conservation Law Enforcement I & II
CON 246: Limnology
Social Sciences:
SOC 110: Social Problems
HUS 204 & 205: Field Experience I & II
PSY 100: Introduction to Psychology
PSY 215/ SCI 215: Biological Psychology
PSY 220: Abnormal Psychology
Physical Education:
PE 212: Health
PE 165: Oriental Healing Arts
PE 112: Yoga
Massage Therapy:
MAS 220: Law and Ethics
Humanities:
ENG 215: Literature and the Environment
Science and Technology:
BIO 118 & 119: Contemporary Biology I & II
g. Strategies to motivate environmentally just and sustainable behavior by individuals and
institutions
Conservation and Horticulture:
CON 110: Sustainable Earth
CON 231 & 232: Conservation Law Enforcement I & II
CON 260: Nature Interpretation
Social Sciences:
SOC 110: Social Problems
HUS 204 & 205: Field Experience I & II
PSY 100: Introduction to Psychology
Massage Therapy:
MAS 220: Law and Ethics
Humanities:
ENG 215: Literature and the Environment
Science and Technology:
54
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
BIO 118 & 119: Contemporary Biology I & II
BIO 121 & 122: General Biology I & II
BIO 171: Human Anatomy & Physiology I
SCI 137: Chaos Theory
SCI 200: Global Ecosystems
Programs:
The Honors Program
Nursing Program
5.2.2. Relevant Course Requirements
The following describes the extent to which the strategies below are made available (and how they
could be made available if not presently done so) to academic programs to educate FLCC students
about sustainability. FLCC’s efforts to address these strategies are provided below each item in italics
font.
a. Freshmen orientation
Orientation materials are provided to incoming students on flash drives to reduce paper
use. FLCC will conduct sustainability training for Orientation Assistants (OAs), for them
to pass on to incoming students.
b. Requiring students to take courses introducing these concepts
FLCC is investigating the possibility of adding sustainability to its list of student learning
outcomes. The College will also look into curriculum mapping to ensure that a student
encounters at least one course with sustainability as a learning outcome prior to his/her
graduation.
c. Providing elective courses on these concepts to all students
FLCC currently offers several elective courses with sustainability concepts built into
them, e.g., Environmental Science, Sustainable Earth, Literature of the Environment. The
College will also identify missing components of sustainability in degree programs and
see where additional elective courses would be appropriate.
d. Integrating these concepts into additional existing courses
FLCC will examine the feasibility of integrating sustainability into additional existing
courses.
e. Offering existing courses to more students
The College dual-lists sustainability-related courses (i.e., Environmental Science is a
Conservation and Biology course; Sustainable Earth is a Conservation and Philosophy
course). The College will offer additional sections of sustainability-related courses as the
need arises.
f.
Creating new multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary courses
An emphasis on interdisciplinary learning/courses is currently occurring in FLCC’s
Honors Program (e.g., through Honors Seminars such as Duel or Duet? Science and
Religion in Modern Life; In the Midst of Water: Our Origins and Destiny; Dualities
across Disciplines).
55
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
g. New programs, institutes, and colleges
FLCC will provide opportunities for students to learn about sustainability at campus
centers; it will also investigate the possibility of offering a sustainability certificate.
FLCC could also design new programs around green technology or other sustainable
green initiatives.
h. Integration across the curriculum
FLCC will use the Center for Teaching and Learning as a mechanism to provide
workshops for faculty development to integrate sustainability in the curriculum.
5.2.3. Pedagogical Methods
The following describes the type and extent of pedagogical methods that are used or anticipated to be
used at FLCC to facilitate systems thinking and the interdisciplinary concepts of climate change and
sustainability. FLCC’s efforts to address these topics are provided below each item in italics font.
a. Inquiry-based and experiential learning – in which students learn through the process of
discovering knowledge themselves and/or through direct experience
Through internships, practicums, and service learning projects, FLCC students gain
direct real-world experience and the learning that comes with it. The College will seek to
build relationships with local sustainable businesses (e.g., New Energy Works, Eagle
Mountain, and local organic farms) for more student internships.
In addition, the Honors Studies program has its own pedagogy: in its aim to contribute to
each student’s intellectual, emotional, moral, and social growth, this program offers a
variety of transformative learning opportunities aimed at preparing students to engage
effectively in a complex and rapidly changing world. Through small, seminar classes and
‘active learning’ pedagogy, the Honors classroom experience strives to engage students
in cross-disciplinary, holistic inquiry that promotes critical and creative thinking, skillful
communication, and civic responsibility.
b. Case-based learning – in which students learn through discussions of real-world
examples and the associated collaboration and debate
FLCC will consider having its students attend local government meetings to learn about
pertinent sustainability issues (e.g., conservation easements on farmland, wind turbine
policy, landfill issues); where applicable ,students could collaborate with the Buildings &
Grounds crew to undertake case-based learning (e.g., students could calculate lifecycle
costing for equipment, make recommendations for paper savings, etc.). Students could
also attend conferences relevant to sustainability to gain additional knowledge and
experience outside of the college environment.
5.2.4. Specific Actions
The following describes actions that FLCC has undertaken or is planning to undertake to further
the promotion of sustainability among its students. FLCC’s efforts to address these topics are
provided below each item in italics font.
56
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
a. Establish a sustainability graduation requirement
FLCC is not going to pursue a sustainability graduation requirement at this time.
b. Include students and faculty on design committees for new buildings (or research projects
intended to look at alternatives to new construction)
The Sustainability Committee and other interested faculty and staff recently participated
in a green charrette for the Student Services Center. Additionally, horticulture faculty
and students are actively involved in campus landscaping.
c. Invite students and faculty to join and fully participate in campus sustainability
committees as well as CAP committees and sub-committees
FLCC fosters participation of the campus community in its sustainability initiatives in the
following ways: (i) At least two representatives from each constituency group (students,
administrators, faculty, professional staff, and support staff) participate in the
Sustainability Committee; (ii) one person from each department serves as a
“Sustainability Liaison” to disseminate information to their department.
For development of this Climate Action Plan, three committees were established
(Curriculum, Operations, Student Life) that together represented all constituency groups.
d. Participate in national climate change awareness raising and action initiatives like “Focus
the Nation” and the “National Teach-In on Global Warming”
In 2009, FLCC participated in the National Teach-In on Global Warming and the
International Day of Climate Action. For the past three years, the College has
participated in the National Campus Sustainability Day. FLCC is also a regular
participant in Earth Day activities.
e. Encourage and empower student environmental activism and clubs
This is ongoing at FLCC through the Conservation Club and through F.L.E.A. (Finger
Lakes Environmental Action).
f.
Organize an annual campus climate summit
The College has no plans for a campus climate summit at this time.
g. Invite nationally renowned expert speakers on climate change and sustainability to your
campus
The well-known ecologist and author Anne LaBastille has presented at FLCC on at least
two occasions. In 2007, the College hosted Walter Simpson (Energy Officer, SUNY
Buffalo; Member of the Energy Managers’ Hall of Fame). In 2010, Chad Pregracke
(founder of Living Lands and Waters; recipient of the Jefferson Award for Public
Service) will be presenting at the Go Green Gala.
h. Create Student Life residential environmental education initiatives such as “Eco-Reps,”
on-campus sustainable living opportunities, etc.
Student Life will have their Orientation Assistants trained in sustainability to facilitate
discussions on this topic with incoming students. Training sessions have been conducted
with Resident Assistants at the College Suites (on-campus student housing). FLCC will
examine the feasibility of a student-run composting system in the suites.
57
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
5.3. Educational Offerings: Co-Curricular
FLCC recognizes that awareness and action on sustainability and climate change cannot be confined
to the classroom alone. The College has identified the following areas in which the CAP effort can be
integrated with activities that serve to enhance the student experience:
•
•
•
Athletics
Student Life
Student Housing
5.3.1. Athletics
The following describes the current extent of, and future plans for, the following activities as they
relate to the Athletics Department at FLCC:
a. Implementation of recycling initiatives within the Athletics Department office/training
facilities and at events:
Category
Office/ Training
Events
Events
Events
Sub-category
Bottles and cans;
White paper;
Cardboard
Status
• All three sub-categories are currently
being recycled in the offices and gym;
• There is interest in having an external
party address sustainability/ recycling
issues at the coaches’ meetings (3x per
year);
• There is interest in establishing a
recycling program at student housing for
their residential training camps for
athletes.
Bottles and cans;
• The gym currently has recycling
Packaging
and
facilities, but there is scope for
Cardboard
expansion;
• Recycling bins need to be added to
athletic fields.
Promotional
• Promotional
announcements
on
announcements
available recycling services are not
currently made;
• There is interest in doing pre-game
announcements that would include
information on recycling.
In-game proactive • This is not currently done.
collection
b. Adoption of environmental practices within the Athletics Department
58
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
Category
Purchase of recycled content
paper for offices
Purchase of recycled content
paper for restroom supplies
Educating employees on green
issues
Student volunteers helping in
green program
Incentivizing mass transport
for game attendees
Other efforts to reduce energy
consumption due to fan travel
Promoting green strategies
with sponsors or advertisers
Status
• This is at the discretion of the FLCC Purchasing
Department
• This is at the discretion of the FLCC Facilities
Department
• There is interest in having an external party
address sustainability/ recycling issues at the
coaches’ meetings (3x per year)
• Athletics would like each team to perform at least
one community service project each year
• Athletes are currently transported to games using
buses;
• Two-thirds of home basketball game attendees are
FLCC students who live at the Suites (on-campus
housing) and have no need to travel
• FLCC currently has very limited options for mass
transit
• FLCC is open to considering the provision of
public transport to all four campus sites
• This is not applicable, as FLCC does not use
sponsors or advertisers
5.3.2. Student Life
The following describes the current extent of, and future plans for, the following activities as they
relate to Student Life at FLCC:
a. Positions within student government focused on sustainability (e.g., environmental affairs
commissioner)
The FLCC Student Senate has a “Sustainability Senator” position.
b. Organization of presentations and seminars in which students, academics, and
practitioners discuss their work on energy and environmental issues
In TECH 244 (Residential Design), students create a house design with at least 2 energy
efficient or environmentally friendly components; they present these projects to peers,
selected FLCC faculty and staff, and area practitioners. Additionally, during Campus
Sustainability Days 2009, we participated in conference calls with Rep. Eric Massa (29th
Congressional District, NY) and Hunter Lovins (sustainability leader). See also section
4.2.4 (g) for additional speakers and events on sustainability.
c. Interaction between students with diverse backgrounds and interests through
collaboration with energy and environmental clubs in other community colleges, SUNY
member institutions, and other public and private universities in the upstate New York
area
59
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
FLCC students participated alongside students from the Rochester Institute of
Technology (RIT) on two recent occasions: (i) a 350.org/International Day of Climate
Action bike rally; and (ii) a conference call with Rep. Eric Massa (see 4.3.2.b).
d. Discussion of articles of technical, economic, and/or social importance relating to
sustainability, climate change, energy or the environment on a regular basis, possibly
with a local expert (faculty or practitioner) as moderator
FLCC recently hosted two events for the public: a debate on a proposed gasification
project at a local landfill, and a “Go Green Tour” in which members of the public were
taken on a tour of local sustainable businesses and residences. The College also hosted a
panel discussion of faculty and staff on various aspects of sustainability for an audience
comprising Ecology and Introduction to Sociology students.
e. Organization of student-driven recycling competitions, with a view towards setting
percentage goals for diversion of waste from landfills – including batteries and ink
cartridges
In April 2009, FLCC conducted a Garbage Assessment to create a baseline of waste
generated. The Child Care Center and the group Phi Theta Kappa collect used ink
cartridges as part of their fundraising activities. The College has also sponsored oncampus electronics recycling drives for the past two years.
f.
Organization of tree planting events
Tree planting events have been organized by Phi Theta Kappa, the Finger Lakes
Environmental Action (FLEA) Club, and the Horticulture Program. Every year FLCC
gives away hundreds of trees at Rochester’s Lilac Festival, and various student groups
give away trees during campus events.
g. Organization of lightbulb exchanges (replacement of incandescent bulbs with CFL or
LED bulbs at no or subsidized cost)
The FLEA club has given away CFL lightbulbs on several occasions.
5.3.3. Student Housing
The following describes the current extent of, and future plans for, the following activities as they
relate to Student Housing at FLCC:
a. Employment of undergraduate students to be environmental representatives in dorms and
houses, educating their peers on environmental issues while serving as advocates for
pragmatic efforts such as light bulb exchanges, double-sided printing, and reducing food
waste
Resident Assistants at the College Suites (student housing) have taken part in a
sustainability information session. FLCC is also interested in exploring the feasibility of
an “Eco Rep” program (subject to funding), and of expanding the collection of goods –
including used clothing, batteries, ink cartridges, etc. – to student housing.
b. Setting up of a model tour room furnished with environmentally-friendly products
including organic bedding, biodegradable detergents, and Energy Star-certified
equipment – together with purchasing information
60
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
FLCC does not have an ownership stake in the College Suites; this is therefore not being
considered at this time.
c. Purchase of locally-grown products for dining services; use of reusable or recyclable
utensils; activities for the minimization of food waste
FLCC’s Dining Services has purchased locally-grown, seasonal food for various campus
events (e.g., Campus Sustainability Days, the Go Green Student of the Year Awards, the
Go Green Tour). They also use many herbs grown in the campus greenhouse; bowls,
plates, and cups used are compostable. FLCC is interested in exploring the creation of a
clearly labeled sorting area in the cafeteria (waste, recyclables, compostables), and in
the establishment of an institutional composting system.
d. Minimization/elimination of onsite bottled water; replacement with inline water
purification system for tap water
FLCC is interested in providing educational information to cafeteria customers about the
negative aspects of bottled water.
e. Use of laundry facilities during off-peak hours (mornings or evenings after 7 PM)
The campus does not own extensive laundry facilities.
5.4. Additional Environmental Priorities
Additional steps and actions that FLCC currently undertakes, or is considering undertaking, are as
follows:
• An expansion of the current policy of posting sustainability tips – currently posted on
bathroom doors, these ideas could be expanded upon and tied into campus life;
• Integration of sustainability activities beyond the main campus – to the Geneva, Victor, and
Wayne County sites;
• Making the walk from the “G” lot more user-friendly
• Placing all recycling bins next to trash cans – this would create “waste stations” that would
reduce the deterrence to recycling
• Use of environmentally-friendly college vehicles (more fuel-efficient, smaller size)
In addition to the specific actions listed above, FLCC also seeks to go further along the path towards a
more sustainable campus that provides an enriching environment for students. Ultimately, the College
desires that every student come away with an understanding of:
• social, environmental, spiritual, occupational, emotional, intellectual, physical wellness
• hands-on learning/experiences
• experiences that are intentional and challenging – in a supportive environment
• an appreciation of the WHY through active engagement and purposeful discussions
• service learning
• global awareness - social justice/ diversity/ cultural awareness; sustainability
• recognition of interconnectedness
61
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
5.5. Communication and Engagement
FLCC shall continue to develop and implement a multi-pronged communication plan to inform,
engage, and interact with its internal and external stakeholders. FLCC believes that any effective
sustainability plan must have two dimensions: content and distribution. These are summarized in the
table below and subsequently explained further.
Bulletin
Content (↓)/ Distribution (→)
X
X
X
X
X
X
Concepts of sustainability and justification
Context and relevance to FLCC
Guiding principles and framework
Specific actions and responsible parties
Costs and benefits
Progress towards results
Live
Remote
X
X
X
X
X
X
Live
In-Person
X
X
X
X
X
X
The content listed in the table covers various modules that are part of FLCC’s comprehensive
approach towards sustainability and its communication.
•
Concepts of sustainability and justification provides a background and scientific context for
taking action on sustainability in general.
•
Context and relevance to FLCC lays out the implications of sustainability for FLCC and how
it fits into actions taken by various bodies, e.g., New York State.
•
Guiding principles and framework provides a top- and mid-level view of the type of actions
that will need to be taken.
•
Specific actions and responsible parties dives into the details of actions and the FLCC
faculty, staff, and students responsible for their execution.
•
Costs and benefits discusses the tradeoffs that inevitably arise when a major program is put in
place, in as quantitative a manner as possible.
•
Progress towards results will be the focus of multiple, periodic communications to outline
the extent to which FLCC has achieved its objectives.
The distribution channels listed in the table refer to the methods by which FLCC will communicate
the above content to its audience:
•
Bulletin comprises information disseminated in the form of content on FLCC websites, links
to external websites, standardized text messages, flyers, documents, spreadsheets, and
slideshows that will be available to a broad audience. Bulletins will provide stakeholders to
provide a background and contextual understanding for “live” events (see below).
•
Live Remote comprises information that will be disseminated remotely by key FLCC
representatives in the form of webinars, phone conferences, radio broadcasts, and the like.
The information session will typically be followed by an interactive question-and-answer
session. Live remote events are expected to attract a large audience, and will typically be
presented by senior FLCC faculty and staff
•
Live In-Person comprises seminars, information sessions, and “town-hall” style meetings that
will have varying degrees of “formality” and can be held by faculty, staff, or student
representatives within their respective forums. In general, the audience for a live in-person
event will be smaller in size than that for a live remote event, although more interactive due
to the face-to-face nature of the former. It is also possible that certain large-scale events may
(e.g., program milestones, final reports) may fall under a combination of the “live remote”
62
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
and “live in-person” categories. This category also includes outreach conducted by FLCC
faculty, staff, and students that has a clear sustainability component.
63
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
6. Results Tracking and Financing
Successful implementation of a climate action plan involves flexibility and long-term support from
FLCC's leadership and stakeholders. Above all, it involves measuring and reporting progress toward
a specific target, in addition to consideration of the opportunities and constraints for financing climate
actions.
6.1. GHG Tracking
A biennial update of the campus emissions inventory is required by the ACUPCC. FLCC will
publicly update the inventory biennially, but internally track GHG emissions annually. This will
allow FLCC to determine progress being made with regards to planned emissions reductions and
adjust strategies as appropriate.
Section 4 presented potential emissions reduction projects through 2030. The projects comprised both
infrastructure change and behavior change. A key strategy for assuring progress with regards to
planned emissions reductions will be to assign sponsors for each emissions reduction project
proposed.
As discussed in Section 1, FLCC has established subcommittees within the Sustainability Committee
that have supported the development of this Action Plan. Following the public launch of this Plan,
these subcommittees will become sponsors for the emission reduction projects recommended in the
Plan.
•
•
Infrastructure change recommendations will be sponsored by the Buildings and Ground
department and the Operations subcommittee. This combined Infrastructure subcommittee
will be led by FLCC’s director of Buildings and Grounds.
Culture change recommendations will be sponsored by the Curriculum and Student Life
subcommittees. This combined Culture Change subcommittee will be led by FLCC’s
Sustainability Coordinator.
The composition of the newly combined subcommittees is presented below.
Infrastructure Subcommittee
Director of Buildings and Grounds, Chair
Buildings and Grounds Department
PCC: Operations Subcommittee
Culture Change Subcommittee
Sustainability Coordinator, Chair
PCC: Curriculum Subcommittee
PCC: Student Life Subcommittee
Each proposed emissions reduction project will be sponsored by at least one subcommittee. The
sponsor’s role will be to guide the funding, implementation, and measurement/verification of the
64
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
project. In addition, FLCC will develop mechanisms by which donors may contribute resources to
this effort.
6.2. Financing
Smart financial planning prioritizes cost-effective emissions mitigation measures, schedules them to
maximize synergies and savings allowing some measures to pay for others, identifies obvious and
unusual funding sources, and uses creative financing techniques to make serious climate action
affordable.
Projects, measures, and programs that reduce GHG emissions can be paid for by a variety of funding
mechanisms including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Self-financing performance contracts
Revolving funds that are replenished by savings generated by conservation measures as well
as perhaps annual budget allocations
Grants from government, foundations or business partners
Energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives provided by government or utilities
Borrowed money from tax-exempt bonds or other types of borrowing
Financial instruments specifically designed to promote renewable energy development
Alumni donations and other fundraising
Student activity fees and graduating class gifts.
Affordability is a key factor that weighs heavily on whether a CAP actually gets implemented. This
means minimizing costs while seeking all available dollars. FLCC will finance the plan through
traditional mechanisms such as capital project requests, campus and departmental budgets, and
external grants as available, as well as through other non-traditional means. Specific measures and
programs to finance CAP actions are summarized below.
FLCC’s primary mechanisms for financing projects is the Capital Improvement Plan. These funds
can be further leveraged through incentives for energy efficiency offered by the New York State
Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Additional potential funding strategies
are described below.
6.2.1. Energy Savings Performance Contracts
An Energy Savings Performance Contract (ESPC) is a partnership between a College or other
organization, and an energy service company (ESCO). The ESCO may conduct a comprehensive
energy audit for the campus and identify improvements to save energy. In consultation with the
College, the ESCO designs and constructs a project or projects to meet College needs and arranges
the necessary financing. The ESCO guarantees that the improvements will generate energy cost
savings sufficient to pay for the project over the term of the contract. After the contract ends, all
additional cost savings accrue to the College.
Under this type of agreement, an ESCO will furnish the up-front capital for an energy efficiency
improvement to FLCC in return for payments over the lifetime of the agreement. These payments are
generated from the energy cost savings generated by the project. The ESCO guarantees the energy
65
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
savings. A utility energy service contract is similar to an energy savings performance contract, but the
utility company (instead of an ESCO) delivers the energy services and pays for upgrades in exchange
for payments from the institution. Payments are made from the energy cost savings generated by the
project.
6.2.2. Revolving Fund
Revolving loan funds can be a very effective financing mechanism for campus sustainability project,
and numerous types of revolving loans have been developed at peer institutions. A revolving loan
fund is both a source of financing and a strategy for managing climate neutrality funds that can
become a generator of new funding. FLCC will dedicate specific funds (e.g., investment of new
utilities savings) to achieving climate neutrality through infrastructure changes; a revolving fund will
help maximize the impact of the initial investment while expanding available resources. With a
revolving loan fund, an initial pool of capital is used to fund a number of projects with a predictable
return. The savings from these projects recapitalize the loan fund, preferably with some fixed
premium to allow the fund to grow. Because it is managed internally, revolving fund managers can
loan money with low interest rates over longer payback periods than a traditional bank loan. This
expands the pool of projects eligible for funding.
Some revolving loan types allow savings from projects (once the loan and fixed premium/interest
have been repaid) to remain in the budget of the unit that implemented the project. Other models
return savings to the general budget. One possibility would be for the revolving loan fund to be
administered by FLCC Facilities & Grounds and capitalized initially (to an agreed upon level) by
money from savings generated by ongoing and future energy conservation projects. A fixed,
negotiated interest rate would allow the fund to grow, with additional savings returning to a central
FLCC budget. This hybrid model, also proposed at the University at Buffalo, State University of New
York, would allow FLCC Facilities & Grounds to fund new GHG mitigation actions while
contributing some savings to a central FLCC budget.
A revolving loan fund is an excellent funding method, but it is not without limitations. Projects must
generate a return fairly quickly if the fund is to finance many projects and have a significant impact
on campus emissions. Bundling projects to include a mix of short and long or uncertain payback
projects will allow managers to tailor the mix of projects to meet the revolving fund’s required
payback timeframe. High-visibility and/or pilot projects may be bundled with reliable performers to
achieve a high level of economic performance for the complete package. Bundling should be used to
ensure that a broad mix of projects receives support.
Finally, while a revolving fund may be created with the goal of achieving climate neutrality, fund
managers may choose to fund projects that do not directly contribute to climate change mitigation, yet
do result in a reduction in FLCC’s utility costs. Fund managers must carefully consider whether such
projects should be funded from a revolving fund or through traditional financing mechanisms.
6.2.3. Green Fee Program
FLCC will evaluate the feasibility of establishing a student-driven campus green fund as a mechanism
for funding portions of the CAP. As currently planned, this fund would include monies generated by
student fees, approximately $10 per student per semester, which would support specific climate action
66
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
and sustainability strategies involving behavior change. Based on full-time equivalent student
enrollment of approximately 1,500 students in the baseline year FY 2000, a green fee program may
generate annual funds on the order of $30,000.
67
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
7. References
American Clean Energy and Security Act (ACESA). 2009. H.R. 2454. Placed on Calendar in Senate.
Available online at http://thomas.loc.gov/.
American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC). 2007. Implementation
Guide: Information and Resources for Participating Institutions.
ACUPCC. 2009. Education for Climate Neutrality and Sustainability: Guidance for ACUPCC
Institutions (Available at: http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/resources/guidancedocuments/academic)
ACUPCC Academic Guidance (Available at:
http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/html/solutions_academics.php).
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). 2009a. ACUPCC
Online Reporting System. Reporting Institutions. Available online at http://acupcc.aashe.org/.
AASHE. 2009b. ACUPCC Online Reporting System. Average Gross Emissions per 1,000 sq ft by
Carnegie Class. Available online at http://acupcc.aashe.org/ghg-scope-statistics.php.
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). 2010. CAP Wiki
(Available at: http://www.aashe.org/wiki/climate-planning-guide/education-research-and-publicengagement.php).
European Commission of the European Union. 2007. European Union Emissions Trading Scheme
(EU ETS).
Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC). 2007. 2007 Facilities Master Plan Update. JMZ
Architects and Planners, P.C.
FLCC. 2009. FLCC FTE Five Year Projection. September 2009.
FLCC. 2008. Sustainability – GoGreen Initiative. Available online at: http://www.flcc.edu/green/.
FLCC. 2009a. Sustainability Mission, Vision, and Philosophy. Full text of statement available online
at: http://spider.flcc.edu/wordpress/?page_id=1606.
FLCC. 2009b. Emergent Potential: FLCC 2008-2013 Strategic Plan. Updated September 2009.
Green-e.org. 2010. Dictionary. Available online at: http://www.green-e.org/learn_dictionary.shtml.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). 2007. Fourth Annual Assessment Report:
Climate Change 2007 (AR4).
New York State. 2009. Executive Order No. 24: Establishing a Goal to Reduce Greenhouse Gas
Emissions Eighty Percent by the Year 2050 and Preparing a Climate Action Plan.
68
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
Finger Lakes Community College
Climate Action Plan
New York State Energy Research and Development Authority (NYSERDA). Renewable Portfolio
Standard Further Reading. Available online at: http://www.nyserda.org/rps/furtherreading.asp.
O’Brien & Gere. 2009. Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Inventory Program, Finger Lakes Community
College.
Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E). 2010. Terms and Conditions of Wind Energy Purchase. Available
online at: http://www.rge.com/YourBusiness/newwindenergy/termsandconditions.html.
United Nations. 1997. Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate
Change (UNFCCC).
U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement. 2005. The U.S. Mayors Climate Protection Agreement
(As endorsed by the 73rd Annual U.S. Conference of Mayors meeting, Chicago, 2005).
U.S.DOE Solid State Lighting Technology Demonstration GATEWAY Program Report, Application
Assessment of Bi-Level LED Parking Lot Lighting, February 2009
69
May 15, 2010
I:\Fingerlakes-Cc.14421\43620.Flcc-Ghg-Invent\CAP\Report
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Appendix A
Lighting Assessment
To understand the impact of lighting on energy use at Finger Lakes Community College (FLCC),
O’Brien & Gere performed a lighting assessment.
Methodology
This lighting assessment is based on data obtained from FLCC and an on-site room by room
evaluation performed. This room by room evaluation was performed to document the quantity
and type of lighting fixtures throughout the campus. For the purpose of this assessment the
sample of fixtures and rooms evaluated are considered to represent an 80-percent sample
approximately 259,984 Ft2 of the total main campus building of approximately 325,000 Ft2. Areas
not included in this sample are the results of limited or no access to the areas due to on-going
classes and no access due to security. In addition this assessment bypassed the Library due to
FLCC’s ongoing upgrade and retrofit of Library lighting.
To quantify energy use for these fixtures run time hours are estimated at 3,000 hours annually,
which equates to 12 hours per day, 5 days per week, 50 weeks per year.
Interior Lighting
The interior lighting at FLCC consists of a combination of T-12, T-8, and T-5 fluorescent,
compact fluorescent, incandescent and metal halide fixtures. The college has move forward with
a staged replacement of existing T-12 fluorescent fixtures with T-8 and T-5 fluorescent fixtures
and the addition of occupancy sensors in the offices and classrooms.
Existing Lighting
Tables A-1 through A-5 identify the existing lighting and energy use attributed to existing
lighting.
Table A- 1. Existing First Floor Lighting
Room
A100
A107
A107
A107A
A108
A109
A110
A110
A110
A110
A110
A111
A112
Stairs
Elevator Lobby
Area
Illum.
15
22
Panel Closet
Men's Bath
Women's Bath
Library Main Stacks
75
75
80
80
Function
Elevator Mechanical
Room
Communications/Data
Fixt.
Type
FK
FA
X1
FF
FJ
FJ
FC
FB-2
FB
FE
A
Fixt.
Qty
5
3
1
1
1
1
24
24
132
8
4
Watts/
Fixt.
171
171
0
114
110
110
57
30
57
60
35
Hours/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.855
0.513
0.000
0.114
0.110
0.110
1.368
0.720
7.524
0.480
0.140
kWh/
Yr
2565
1539
0
342
330
330
4104
2160
22572
1440
420
75
FH
1
114
3000
0.114
342
75
FH
2
114
3000
0.228
684
Page 1 of 33
SF
Watts/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
A113
A113
A114
A114
A115
A115
A115
A115
A115
A116
A116
A116
A117
A117
A117
B100
B100
B100A
B102
B104
B105
B106
B108
B110
B113
B114
B115
B115
B116
B117
B117
B120
B124
B125
B126
B128
B128A
B128B
B128C
B129
B129A
B130
B131
B131A
B132
B133
B136
B137
B138
B138
B138A
B139
B140
B140A
Function
Library Study
Area
Illum.
80
Library Lobby
10
Library Study
22
Corridor/Alcove
110
Corridor/Alcove
Stairs
Exit Door
Admin. Board Room
80
Public Safety
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Corridor
Public Safety
Support
Support
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Boiler Room
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Support
Corridor
Administration
Administration
Alumni
Support
Mail Room
Administration
Administration
Administration
Fixt.
Type
FA
TC
X1
FE
FP
FP-1
FP-2
TF
X1
FM
A
X3
FM
FK
HB
CFQ13/2
F41GL*
F41GL*
F82SS
F41GL
F41GL
F41GL
F41GL
F41GL
F43LE
F42LE
FU1LL
FU2LL
FU2LL
FU2LL
FU1LL
F44SS
F42LE
F82SS
F42LE*
F42LE*
F42LE*
F42LE*
CFQ13/2
F42LE*
F42LE*
F44LE
F43LE
F42LE*
F44SS
F44LE
F44LE
F44LE
F43LE
F44SS
F43LE
F44LE
F44LE
F43LE
Fixt.
Qty
9
9
1
4
6
5
1
9
1
2
4
1
2
6
1
8
4
2
2
6
4
4
4
4
1
2
1
1
1
6
1
1
3
20
3
4
1
1
8
5
2
3
4
2
2
4
2
2
10
2
2
6
7
2
Page 2 of 33
Watts/
Fixt.
171
35
114
35
Hours/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
114
171
95
31
32
32
173
32
32
32
32
32
110
71
32
60
60
60
32
188
71
173
71
71
71
71
31
71
71
142
110
71
188
142
142
142
110
188
110
142
142
110
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
60
114
114
89
50
kW
1.539
0.315
0.000
0.240
0.684
0.570
0.089
0.450
0.000
0.228
0.140
0.000
0.228
1.026
0.095
0.248
0.128
0.064
0.346
0.192
0.128
0.128
0.128
0.128
0.110
0.142
0.032
0.060
0.060
0.360
0.032
0.188
0.213
3.460
0.213
0.284
0.071
0.071
0.248
0.355
0.142
0.426
0.440
0.142
0.376
0.568
0.284
0.284
1.100
0.376
0.220
0.852
0.994
0.220
kWh/
Yr
4617
945
0
720
2052
1710
267
1350
0
684
420
0
684
3078
285
744
384
192
1038
576
384
384
384
384
330
426
96
180
180
1080
96
564
639
10380
639
852
213
213
744
1065
426
1278
1320
426
1128
1704
852
852
3300
1128
660
2556
2982
660
SF
Watts/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B140B
B140C
B140D
B140E
B141
B141
B141
B142
B142
B142
B142
B142A
B142A
B142B
B145
B145
B145
B145
B146
B148
B148A
B149
B150
B151
B151
B152
B155
B156
B157
B236
B236
B236
B236
B236
Function
Administration
Administration
Administration
Area
Illum.
Fixt.
Type
F44LE
FU2SS
FU2SS
F44LE
CFQ13/2
F21GL
F41GL
CFQ13/2
CF23/1
F43LE*
F44LE
F43LE*
I40/1
F44SS*
CFQ13/2
F22LE
F43LE*
EI15/2
I100/1
F44SS
F44SS
F43LE
F42SS
F42SS
F44SS
F44SS
F43SS*
F43SS*
F43SS*
F42SS*
F43LE*
F82SS*
F82SS*
EI15/2
Corridor
Corridor
Communications/Data
Corridor
Corridor
Art Studio
Support
Support
Administration
Administration
Support
Administration
Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Stair
Fixt.
Qty
2
1
4
2
21
2
4
2
1
3
1
1
3
1
1
9
4
2
40
6
4
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
Watts/
Fixt.
142
96
96
142
31
18
32
31
29
110
142
110
40
188
31
29
110
30
100
188
188
110
94
94
188
188
151
151
151
94
110
173
173
30
548
80% of Sq. Ft. Sample
Hours/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.284
0.096
0.384
0.284
0.651
0.036
0.128
0.062
0.029
0.330
0.142
0.110
0.120
0.188
0.031
0.261
0.440
0.060
4.000
1.128
0.752
0.110
0.282
0.094
0.188
0.376
0.302
0.302
0.151
0.094
0.220
0.173
0.173
0.030
3000
43.70
3000
100% of Sq.Ft.
Estimate
kWh/
Yr
852
288
1152
852
1953
108
384
186
87
990
426
330
360
564
93
783
1320
180
2000
3384
2256
330
846
282
564
1128
906
906
453
282
660
519
519
90
SF
Watts/SF
1.32
31,112
33,020
63,890
41,275
54.63
1.32
Table A- 2. Existing Second Floor Lighting
Room
A200
A201
A202
A203
A204
A205
A206
A207
A208
Function
Corridor
Corridor
Area /
Illum.
Fixt.
Type
Fixt.
Qty
Watts
/ Fixt.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Page 3 of 33
Hour
s/ Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
kWh/ Yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
SF
Watts/
SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
A209
A210
A210A
A211
A212
A213
A214
A215
A216
A217
A218
A219
A219
A220
A221
A222
A223
A224
A225
A226
A227
A228
A228A
A243
A244
A245
A246
A247
A248
A249
A250
A250
B200
B201
B202
B203
B204
B205
B206
B207
B208
B209
B210A
B210A
B210A
B210B
B210B
B210B
B211
B211
B211
B212
Function
Area /
Illum.
Fixt.
Type
Fixt.
Qty
2
4
2
2
2
2
Watts
/ Fixt.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
177
94
94
94
110
94
Hour
s/ Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0.354
0.376
0.188
0.188
0.22
0.188
kWh/ Yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1062
1128
564
564
660
564
4
4
4
4
4
10
6
4
10
6
4
10
6
4
94
94
94
94
94
173
173
110
110
173
94
173
173
94
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
1.73
1.038
0.44
1.1
1.038
0.376
1.73
1.038
0.376
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
5190
3114
1320
3300
3114
1128
5190
3114
1128
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Continuing Education
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Corridor
Empire State College
Empire State College
Corridor
Support
Corridor
Administration
Support
Administration
Corridor/Alcove
Administration
Conservation (Office)
Conservation
Music (Cong)
Music (Cong)
Conservation
Remedial &
Development
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
F43GHL
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F43LE
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F82SS
F82SS
F43LE
F43LE
F82SS
F42SS
F82SS
F82SS
F42SS
Page 4 of 33
kW
SF
Watts/
SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B212
B212
B213
B213A
B213A
B213B
B213B
B214
B215
B216
B217
B218
B219
B220
B221
B222
B223
B224
B225
B225A
B225A
B225A
B226
B227
B227
B228
B229
B231
B232
B234
B237
B237
B237
B239
B240
B240
Function
Area /
Illum.
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Communications/Data
Theater
Theater
Office (Congn.)
Communications/Data
Conservation
Theater
Theater
Communications/Data
Corridor
Communications/Data
Theater
Facilities
Facilities
Student Services
Facilities
Facilities
Stairs
Book Store Storage.
Theater
B240
B241
B242
B243
B243
B243
B243A
B245
B245A
B247
B247
B247
B248
B248
B248
B248
Cafeteria
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Communications/Data
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Cafeteria
Cafeteria
Cafeteria
Cafeteria
16-68
28-45
Fixt.
Type
F82SS
F82SS
I75/1
EI15/2
F82SS
EI15/2
F82SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F43LE
F42SS
F22LL*
F42SS
F42SS
I40/2
F43SS
F43SS
F44SS
F44SS
F42SS
F82SS
F81SS
F43SS
F43SS
F44SS
F82SS
MH150/
1
F4228
F82SS
F44SS
F82SS
F81SS
F42SS
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
FU2LL
F43SS
F82SS
FU2LL
EI15/2
Fixt.
Qty
10
6
10
1
6
1
10
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
4
2
1
2
17
1
2
2
6
8
3
2
1
1
6
24
40
Watts
/ Fixt.
173
173
75
30
173
30
173
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
110
94
31
94
94
40
151
151
188
188
94
173
100
151
151
188
173
Hour
s/ Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
1000
1000
kW
1.73
1.038
0.75
0.03
1.038
0.03
1.73
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.44
0.188
0.031
0.188
1.598
0.04
0.302
0.302
1.128
1.504
0.282
0.346
0.1
0.151
0.906
4.512
6.92
kWh/ Yr
5190
3114
2250
90
3114
90
5190
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
1320
564
93
564
4794
120
906
906
3384
4512
846
1038
300
453
2718
4512
6920
14
190
1000
2.66
2660
18
3
4
8
2
10
9
4
9
9
1
4
62
6
2
51
173
188
173
100
94
110
110
110
110
60
151
173
60
30
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.918
0.519
0.752
1.384
0.2
0.94
0.99
0.44
0.99
0.99
0.06
0.604
10.73
0.36
0.06
2754
1557
2256
4152
600
2820
2970
1320
2970
2970
180
1812
32178
1080
180
Page 5 of 33
SF
Watts/
SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B248A
B248A
B248B
B249
B250
B251
B252
B253
B253A
B254
B255
B256
B257
B258
B260
B261
B262
B262
B262A
B263
B263A
B264
B265
B266
B268
B268
B268
B273
B276
B276
B277
B277
B278
B280
B281
B287
B287
C201
C201
C201A
C202
C203
C207
C208
C208
C208
C210A
C211
C214
Function
Cafeteria
Cafeteria
Faculty Student
Association
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Faculty Student
Association
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Area /
Illum.
41-65
Copy Room
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
15-70
Corridor
Corridor
Student Services
Mechanical Storage
Mechanical Storage
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Faculty Student
Association
Bath
Kitchen
Kitchen Hoods
Freezer
Faculty Student
Association
Electrical/Janitorial/
Fixt.
Type
F82SS
F42SS
F42SS
Fixt.
Qty
16
4
3
Watts
/ Fixt.
173
94
94
Hour
s/ Yr
3000
3000
3000
kW
2.768
0.376
0.282
kWh/ Yr
8304
1128
846
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
4
2
1
4
7
2
6
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.44
0.22
0.11
0.44
0.77
0.22
0.66
1320
660
330
1320
2310
660
1980
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F44SS
F43LE
F43LE
F43SS
F42LE
F42SS
F42SS
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F82SS
I100/1
I 75/1
F42SS
F22LL*
F43LE
F22LL*
F43LE
F22LL*
F43LE
I60/1
I75/1
F22SS
F44SS
I60/1
F82SS
F44SS
F44SS
F82SS
15
4
4
6
2
2
4
11
1
2
2
2
2
2
7
11
3
6
9
26
1
8
6
2
3
1
1
9
3
6
4
4
1
110
110
110
110
188
110
110
151
71
94
94
110
110
110
173
100
75
94
31
110
31
110
31
110
60
75
56
188
60
173
188
188
173
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
1.65
0.44
0.44
0.66
0.376
0.22
0.44
1.661
0.071
0.188
0.188
0.22
0.22
0.22
1.211
1.1
0.225
0.564
0.279
2.86
0.031
0.88
0.186
0.22
0.18
0.075
0.056
1.692
0.18
1.038
0.752
0.752
0.173
4950
1320
1320
1980
1128
660
1320
4983
213
564
564
660
660
660
3633
3300
675
1692
837
8580
93
2640
558
660
540
225
168
5076
540
3114
2256
2256
519
F42LE
F22LL*
CF23/1
CFT32/
1-L
F22LL*
3
22
4
71
31
29
3000
3000
3000
0.213
0.682
0.116
639
2046
348
2
34
3000
0.068
204
4
31
3000
0.124
372
F82SS
2
173
3000
0.346
1038
Page 6 of 33
SF
Watts/
SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
C216
C217
C220
C221
C221A
C222
C223
C225A
C225A
C226A
C227
C227A
C227A
C227A
C228
C229
C229
C230
C231
C232
C234
C238
D201
D201
D201C
D201C
D202A
Function
Storage.
Storage
Facilities
Conservation
Music
Remedial
Development
Conservation
Facilities
Classroom
Room
Corridor
Corridor
Classroom
Corridor
Corridor
Classroom
Classroom
Conservation
Conservation
Nursing
Student Services
Student Services
Faculty Student
Association
D203
Valence
D205
D205
D205A
D205B
D205D
D206
D207
D208
D209
D210
D211
D212
D214
D214
D215
D219
D220
D221
D222
D223
Administration
D225
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Classroom
Classroom
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Communications/Data
Valance
Area /
Illum.
Fixt.
Type
Fixt.
Qty
Watts
/ Fixt.
Hour
s/ Yr
F42GL*
F42LE*
F42LE
F43LE*
F42GL*
F43SS
F43SS
3
1
10
2
2
2
2
63
71
71
110
63
151
151
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.189
0.071
0.71
0.22
0.126
0.302
0.302
567
213
2130
660
378
906
906
F42LE
EI15/2
F82SS
F44SS
F41LE
F43LE
CF23/1
F43LE
F42LE
EI15/2
F43SS
F43SS
F82SS
F44SS
F43SS
F43SS
F41SS
F43SS
F41SS
F43LE
11
2
2
9
1
6
4
9
11
4
12
15
2
4
2
7
1
2
1
2
71
30
173
188
35
110
29
110
71
30
151
151
173
188
151
151
57
151
57
110
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.781
0.06
0.346
1.692
0.035
0.66
0.116
0.99
0.781
0.12
1.812
2.265
0.346
0.752
0.302
1.057
0.057
0.302
0.057
0.22
2343
180
1038
5076
105
1980
348
2970
2343
360
5436
6795
1038
2256
906
3171
171
906
171
660
5
33
3000
0.165
495
13
9
2
2
2
7
2
2
2
4
1
4
12
43
4
7
2
2
2
9
151
57
151
151
151
188
188
188
188
188
96
142
94
120
173
188
188
188
188
188
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
1.963
0.513
0.302
0.302
0.302
1.316
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.752
0.096
0.568
1.128
5.16
0.692
1.316
0.376
0.376
0.376
1.692
5889
1539
906
906
906
3948
1128
1128
1128
2256
288
1704
3384
15480
2076
3948
1128
1128
1128
5076
5
33
3000
0.165
495
CFQ26/
1
F43SS
F41SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F44SS
F44SS
F44SS
F44SS
F44SS
FU2SS
F44LE
F42SS
I120/1
F82SS
F44SS
F44SS
F44SS
F44SS
F44SS
CFQ26/
1
Page 7 of 33
kW
kWh/ Yr
SF
Watts/
SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
D226
D227A
D227B
D227B
D228
D228
Function
Facilities
Storage
Storage
Storage
Corridor
Area /
Illum.
D228
D229
D229
Administration
D229
D230
D231
D232
Administration
Administration
Administration
Fixt.
Type
F82SS
F82SS
F81SS
F82SS
F43LE
F21SS
CFQ13/
2
F42LE
F41SS
CFQ13/
2
F44SS
F44SS
F44SS
80% of Sq. Ft.
Sample
100% of Sq.Ft.
Estimate
Fixt.
Qty
2
1
2
4
24
1
Watts
/ Fixt.
173
173
100
173
110
28
Hour
s/ Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.346
0.173
0.2
0.692
2.64
0.028
kWh/ Yr
1038
519
600
2076
7920
84
4
31
3000
0.124
372
1
8
71
57
3000
3000
0.071
0.456
213
1368
5
31
3000
0.155
465
3
2
2
188
188
188
3000
3000
3000
0.564
0.376
0.376
1692
1128
1128
3000
131.49
394,476
81,068
1.62
3000
164.37
493,095
101,335
1.62
Watts
/ Fixt.
0
0
0
0
0
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
kWh/ Yr
0
0
0
0
0
SF
0
0
3000
3000
0.000
0.000
0
0
0
3000
0.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0.000
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
151
63
151
151
151
151
110
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.000
0.000
0.302
0.252
0.906
1.208
1.208
1.208
0.550
0
0
906
756
2718
3624
3624
3624
1650
1058
SF
Watts/
SF
Table A- 3. Existing Third Floor Lighting.
Room
A300
A301
A302
A303
A304
A305
A306
A306A
A310
A311
A314
A315
A316
A317
A323
A324
A324
B300
B300A
B300B
B302
B303
B304
B305
Function
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Math
Computer Science
Area /
Illum.
Fixt.
Type
Fixt.
Qty
Library Master
Control
Library Math
Computer Science
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Media Copy
Center
Library Study
Corridor/Stair
Classroom
Classroom
Classroom
Music
15-40
60
15-40
60
60
F43SS
F42GL
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43LE
2
4
6
8
8
8
5
Page 8 of 33
Watts/
SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B305
B307
B308
B309
B310
B312
B312A
B312B
B312C
B312D
B315A
B315A
B315B
B315B
B328
B329
B330
B330C
B333
B333
B333
B335
B339
B358
B358
B360
B361
B362
B362A
B362A
B362A
B362B
B362B
B362B
B362C
B362C
B362D
B362D
B362E
B366A
B366B
B366B
B366C
B372
B373
B373
Function
Math Computer
Science
Music
Math Computer
Science
Music
Computer Lab
Corridor
Lobby
Lobby
Lobby
Stair
Area /
Illum.
60
40
50
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Classroom Science
& Tech
Corridor
Corridor
Nursing
Office
Storage
Conference Room
Nursing
Corridor w/Lights &
Skylights
78
Corridor w/sky
90
Corridor
45
Corridor
45
Corridor
Skylight w/Lights
45
115
Corridor
Remedial & Dev.
Comp Lab
Remedial & Dev.
Comp Lab
80
Fixt.
Type
F43SS
F43SS
Fixt.
Qty
1
9
Watts
/ Fixt.
151
151
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
kW
0.151
1.359
kWh/ Yr
453
4077
F43LE
F43SS
3
6
110
151
3000
3000
0.330
0.906
990
2718
F43LE
F43SS
F43SS
F42SS
F42SS
F43SS
F43LE
CFQ13/2
F82SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F42GL
F43SS
13
8
5
3
2
5
4
4
3
1
2
2
4
2
17
110
151
151
94
94
151
110
31
173
151
151
151
151
63
151
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
1.430
1.208
0.755
0.282
0.188
0.755
0.440
0.124
0.519
0.151
0.302
0.302
0.604
0.126
2.567
4290
3624
2265
846
564
2265
1320
372
1557
453
906
906
1812
378
7701
I120/1
EI15/2
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
CFT40/2
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
12
1
2
15
42
12
2
4
6
120
30
151
151
151
85
151
151
151
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
1.440
0.030
0.302
2.265
6.342
1.020
0.302
0.604
0.906
4320
90
906
6795
19026
3060
906
1812
2718
8
57
3000
0.456
1368
4
1
14
12
2
1
1
7
2
4
9
8
2
4
8
28
94
56
28
30
94
31
94
30
31
94
28
31
94
71
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.112
0.094
0.784
0.336
0.060
0.094
0.031
0.658
0.060
0.124
0.846
0.224
0.062
0.376
0.568
336
282
2352
1008
180
282
93
1974
180
372
2538
672
186
1128
1704
F42LE
8
71
3000
0.568
1704
F42SS
2
94
3000
0.188
564
F41SS
F21SS
F42SS
F22SS
F21SS
EI15/2
F42SS
CFQ13/2
F42SS
EI15/2
CFQ13/2
F42SS
F21SS
CFQ13/2
F42SS
F42LE
Page 9 of 33
SF
Watts/
SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B375
B375
B375
B376
B377
B378
B379
B380
B381
B383
B383B
B384
B384A
B384B
B385
B386
B387
B387
B389
B390
B390
B391
B391A
C300
C300A
C300B
C300C
C300D
C300E
C301
C302
C303
C304
C305
C305
C306
C312
C312
C313
C313A
Function
Remedial & Dev.
Supt. Ctr.
Area /
Illum.
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Support/Admin
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science Terminal
Corridor/Stair
Corridor/Stair
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Biology
Biology
33
80
33
80
Storage
Classroom
Micro Biology Lab
Corridor
80
Fixt.
Type
F43SS
Fixt.
Qty
13
Watts
/ Fixt.
151
Hour/
Yr
3000
kW
1.963
kWh/ Yr
5889
I75/1
F43SS
F43SS
4
2
2
75
151
151
3000
3000
3000
0.300
0.302
0.302
900
906
906
F43SS
2
151
3000
0.302
906
F43SS
2
151
3000
0.302
906
F43SS
2
151
3000
0.302
906
F43SS
2
151
3000
0.302
906
F43SS
2
151
3000
0.302
906
F42LE
12
71
3000
0.852
2556
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F42SS
6
2
2
4
18
151
151
151
151
94
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.906
0.302
0.302
0.604
1.692
2718
906
906
1812
5076
F42SS
18
94
3000
1.692
5076
F42SS
18
94
3000
1.692
5076
F43SS
F42SS
3
18
151
94
3000
3000
0.453
1.692
1359
5076
F42SS
18
94
3000
1.692
5076
F43SS
F43SS
2
4
151
151
3000
3000
0.302
0.604
906
1812
F43SS
2
151
3000
0.302
906
F41SS
F42SS
F44SS
F44SS
F44SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42LE
FU2SS
F43SS
I75/1
F42SS
F43LE
4
10
3
30
5
10
2
2
2
30
48
1
10
6
4
56
2
57
94
188
188
188
94
94
94
94
94
94
71
96
151
75
94
110
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.228
0.940
0.564
5.640
0.940
0.940
0.188
0.188
0.188
2.820
4.512
0.071
0.960
0.906
0.300
5.264
0.220
684
2820
1692
16920
2820
2820
564
564
564
8460
13536
213
2880
2718
900
15792
660
Page 10 of 33
SF
Watts/
SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
C318
C318A
C322
C323
C324
C329
C330
C330
D307
D312
D312
D312
D329
D329
D332
D334
D339
D339
D346
D350
D350
D350
D350A
D350A
D350A
D351
D352
D353
D354
D355
D356
D357
D358
D359
D361
D362
D363
D364
D365
D365
D365
D365
D366
D367
D368
D369
D370
D371
D372
D373
D374
D375
Function
Corridor
Classroom
Lab
Prep Room
lab
Physics
Greenhouse
Corridor
Phys Ed Office
Phys Ed Office
Bathroom, Mens
Lockers
Storage
Storage
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Office Space
Corridor, office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Conf Room
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Area /
Illum.
80
65
45
Fixt.
Type
F42SS
F43LE
F43LE
F42SS
F22SS
F42SS
F42SS
EI15/2
F42SS
FU2SS
F42SS
I60/1
F22SS
FU2SS
FU2SS
F42SS
F42SS
FU2SS
FU2SS
F42SS
EI5/2
CFT40/2
F42SS
EI5/3
CFT40/2
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F42SS
I75/1
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
Fixt.
Qty
64
2
6
40
10
25
40
1
7
18
1
7
4
16
16
44
Watts
/ Fixt.
94
110
110
94
56
94
94
30
94
96
94
60
56
96
96
94
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
6.016
0.220
0.660
3.760
0.560
2.350
3.760
0.030
0.658
1.728
0.094
0.420
0.224
1.536
1.536
4.136
kWh/ Yr
18048
660
1980
11280
1680
7050
11280
90
1974
5184
282
1260
672
4608
4608
12408
2
2
17
5
2
6
5
2
6
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
2
7
6
1
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
94
96
96
94
10
85
94
10
85
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
110
151
151
151
151
94
75
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
151
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.188
0.192
1.632
0.470
0.020
0.510
0.470
0.020
0.510
0.220
0.220
0.220
0.440
0.220
0.220
0.220
0.220
0.220
0.220
0.440
0.302
0.302
1.057
0.906
0.094
0.450
0.302
0.302
0.302
0.302
0.302
0.302
0.302
0.302
0.302
0.302
564
576
4896
1410
60
1530
1410
60
1530
660
660
660
1320
660
660
660
660
660
660
1320
906
906
3171
2718
282
1350
906
906
906
906
906
906
906
906
906
906
Page 11 of 33
SF
Watts/
SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
D387
D392
D393
Function
Corridor, office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Area /
Illum.
Fixt.
Type
F42SS
F43SS
F43SS
Fixt.
Qty
2
2
2
Watts
/ Fixt.
94
151
151
1135
80% of Sq. Ft.
Sample
100% of Sq. Ft.
Estimate
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.188
0.302
0.302
kWh/ Yr
564
906
906
3000
120.8
362,403
89,362
1.35
3000
151.0
453,004
111,702
1.35
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.568
0.752
0.060
0.880
0.990
0.220
0.220
0.220
0.660
0.284
0.284
0.284
0.284
0.990
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.990
0.660
0.376
0.376
0.660
0.752
0.094
0.056
0.056
0.100
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.220
0.376
0.660
0.906
0.440
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
kWh/
Yr
1704
2256
180
2640
2970
660
660
660
1980
852
852
852
852
2970
1128
1128
1128
2970
1980
1128
1128
1980
2256
282
168
168
300
1128
1128
1128
660
1128
1980
2718
1320
1128
1128
1128
1128
SF
Watts/
SF
Table A- 4. Existing Fourth Floor Lighting
Room
B400
B402
B402
B403
B404
B405
B406
B407
B408
B408A
B408B
B408C
B408D
B409
B410
B411
B412
B414
B415
B415
B416
B417
B418
B419
B421
B421
B421
B423
B424
B425
B426
B427
B429
B430
B430
B431
B432
B433
B434
Function
Office
Mechanical
Mechanical
Classroom
Classroom
Office
Office
Office
Classroom
Office
Office
Office
Office
Classroom
Office
Office
Office
Classroom
Classroom
Office
Office
Classroom
Classroom
Storage
Restroom
Restroom
Restroom
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Corridor
Lobby
Lobby
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Area /
Illum.
35-60
46-66
60-75
60-75
60-75
46-66
54
54
54
46-66
54
54
36
36
36
36
26-60
36
36
36
36
Fixt.
Type
F44LE
F42SS
EI15/2
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F43LE
F44LE
F44LE
F44LE
F44LE
F43LE
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F43LE
F43LE
F42SS
F42SS
F43LE
F44SS
F42SS
F22SS*
F22SS
I100/1
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F43LE
F42SS
F43LE
F43SS
F43LE
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
Fixt.
Qty
4
8
2
8
9
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
9
4
4
4
9
6
4
4
6
4
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
4
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
Watts/
Fixt.
142
94
30
110
110
110
110
110
110
142
142
142
142
110
94
94
94
110
110
94
94
110
188
94
56
56
100
94
94
94
110
94
110
151
110
94
94
94
94
Page 12 of 33
SF
Watts/
SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B435
B436
B437
B438
B439
B440
B440
B440
B440
B441
B442
B442A
B443
B444
B450
B450
B450
B450
B452
B452
C400
C401
C402
C403
C405
C407
C4088
C410
C411
C414
C415
C416
C417
C418
C419
C420
C421
C422
C423
C425
C426
C427
C429
C429
C429
C430
C430
C431
C432
C432
C433
C439
C439A
Function
Corridor
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Conference Room
Conference Room
Conference Room
Conference Room
Stairs
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Conference Room
Conference Room
Conference Room
Conference Room
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Stair well
Office
Office
Office
Woodshop
Art Studio
Welding Studio
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Studio
Studio
Studio
Drawing Studio
Drawing Studio
Classroom
Classroom
Classroom, open
Corridor
Corridor
Area /
Illum.
36
36
36
40-66
40-66
40
50
43-73
Fixt.
Type
F43SS
F42SS
F43LE
F42SS
F42SS
F22SS*
EI15/2
I150/1
MH70/1
F42SS
F43LE
F43LE
EI15/2
F42SS
FU2SS
I150/1
EI15/2
MH70/1
F44SS
I60/1
F41SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F22LL*
F42SS
F43SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F43SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
F42SS
I120/1
I75/1
F42SS
I120/1
F44SS
F43LE
I75/1
F43SS
F43LE
F44SS
Fixt.
Qty
5
4
2
4
4
20
1
14
5
1
6
3
1
3
9
9
1
5
1
2
4
4
4
4
6
80
2
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
4
4
4
4
45
22
1
27
10
8
15
5
8
9
4
Watts/
Fixt.
151
94
110
94
94
56
30
150
95
94
110
110
30
94
96
150
30
95
188
60
57
94
94
94
31
94
151
94
94
94
94
94
151
151
151
151
94
94
94
94
94
94
94
120
75
94
120
188
110
75
151
110
188
Page 13 of 33
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.755
0.376
0.220
0.376
0.376
1.120
0.030
2.100
0.475
0.094
0.660
0.330
0.030
0.282
0.864
1.350
0.030
0.475
0.188
0.120
0.228
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.186
7.520
0.302
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.302
0.302
0.302
0.302
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
0.376
4.230
2.640
0.075
2.538
1.200
1.504
1.650
0.375
1.208
0.990
0.752
kWh/
Yr
2265
1128
660
1128
1128
3360
90
6300
1425
282
1980
990
90
846
2592
4050
90
1425
564
360
684
1128
1128
1128
558
22560
906
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
906
906
906
906
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
1128
12690
7920
225
7614
3600
4512
4950
1125
3624
2970
2256
SF
Watts/
SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
C439B
C439B
C439B
C440
C441
Function
Corridor, 1/2 off
Corridor, 1/2 off
Corridor, 1/2 off
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Shop, weld/paint/ex
proof
KILN
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
C441
C441A
C443
C443
C445
Area /
Illum.
50?
Fixt.
Type
F42SS
I75/1
EI15/2
F43SS
F43SS
CFQ13/2
Fixt.
Qty
10
11
1
2
2
1
Watts/
Fixt.
94
75
30
151
151
31
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.940
0.825
0.030
0.302
0.302
0.031
kWh/
Yr
2820
2475
90
906
906
93
4
3
9
4
94
242
188
94
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.376
0.726
1.692
0.376
1128
2178
5076
1128
3000
64.9
194,697
56,534
1.15
3000
81.1
243,371
70,668
1.15
F42SS
F430
F44SS
F42SS
616
80% of Sq. Ft.
Sample
100% of Sq.Ft.
Estimate
Watts/
SF
SF
Table A- 5. Existing Floors 1-4 Lighting Energy Use
Lighting Baseline, Energy Density per Floor 80% Sq. Ft. Sample
Cumulative
Lighting (kW)
Total Floor
Area (SF)
Energy
Density
(W/SF)
Annual Energy
(kWh)
Annual Cost ($/YR)
1st Floor
43.70
33,020
1.32
131,112
$
12,324.53
2nd Floor
131.49
81,068
1.62
394,476
$
37,080.74
3rd Floor
120.80
89,362
1.35
362,403
$
34,065.88
4th Floor
64.90
56,534
1.15
194,697
$
18,301.52
360.90
259,984
1.39
1,082,688
Total
$ 101,772.67
Retrofit High Efficiency T-8 and T-5 Lighting Fixtures
Tables A-6 through A-10 identify the reduction in energy of a proposed retrofit of existing T-12
and T-8 fluorescent lighting with high efficiency T-8 and T-5 lighting fixtures. This retrofit
would be a direct bulb for bulb replacement with no consideration for de-lamping. This retrofit
would result in higher level of illumination of the areas retrofit.
Table A- 6. First Floor Retrofit High Efficiency T-8 and T-5 Lighting Energy Use
Room
A100
A107
A107
A107A
A108
A109
A110
A110
Function
Stairs
Elevator Lobby
Area /
Illum.
15
22
Panel Closet
Men's Bath
Women's Bath
Library Main Stacks
75
75
80
80
Fixt. Type
FK
FA
X1
FF
FJ
FJ
FC
FB-2
Fixt
Qty
5
3
1
1
1
1
24
24
Watt/
Fixt.
171
171
0
114
110
110
57
30
Page 14 of 33
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.86
0.51
0.00
0.11
0.11
0.11
1.37
0.72
kWh/ Yr
2565
1539
0
342
330
330
4104
2160
SF
Watt
/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
A110
A110
A110
A111
A112
A113
A113
A114
A114
A115
A115
A115
A115
A115
A116
A116
A116
A117
A117
A117
B100
B100
B100A
B102
B104
B105
B106
B108
B110
B113
B114
B115
B115
B116
B117
B117
B120
B124
B125
B126
B128
B128A
B128B
B128C
B129
B129A
B130
B131
B131A
B132
B133
B136
Function
Elevator Mechanical
Room
Communications/
Data
Library Study
Area /
Illum.
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
kW
7.52
0.48
0.14
kWh/ Yr
22572
1440
420
1
114
3000
0.11
342
75
FH
2
114
3000
0.23
684
80
FA
TC
X1
FE
FP
FP-1
FP-2
TF
X1
FM
A
X3
FM
FK
HB
CFQ13/2
F41GL*
F41GL*
F82ILL-R
F41GL
F41GL
F41GL
F41GL
F41GL
F43SILL-R
F42GL
F22GL*
F21GL*
F22GL*
F21GL*
FU2ILL-R
F44SILL
F42GL
F82ILL-R
F42GL*
F42GL*
F42GL*
F42GL*
CFQ13/2
F42GL*
F42GL*
F44SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F42GL*
F44SILL
F44SILL-R
F44SILL-R
9
9
1
4
6
5
1
9
1
2
4
1
2
6
1
8
4
2
2
6
4
4
4
4
1
2
1
1
1
1
6
1
3
20
3
4
1
1
8
5
2
3
4
2
2
4
2
171
35
114
35
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
114
171
95
31
32
32
98
32
32
32
32
32
70
63
35
18
35
18
52
105
63
98
63
63
63
63
31
63
63
91
70
63
105
91
91
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
1.54
0.32
0.00
0.24
0.68
0.57
0.09
0.45
0.00
0.23
0.14
0.00
0.23
1.03
0.10
0.25
0.13
0.06
0.20
0.19
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.13
0.07
0.13
0.04
0.02
0.04
0.02
0.31
0.11
0.19
1.96
0.19
0.25
0.06
0.06
0.25
0.32
0.13
0.27
0.28
0.13
0.21
0.36
0.18
4617
945
0
720
2052
1710
267
1350
0
684
420
0
684
3078
285
744
384
192
588
576
384
384
384
384
210
378
105
54
105
54
936
315
567
5880
567
756
189
189
744
945
378
819
840
378
630
1092
546
Library Study
22
Corridor/Alcove
110
Corridor/Alcove
Stairs
Exit Door
Admin. Board Room
80
Boiler Room
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Support
Corridor
Administration
Administration
Alumni
Watt/
Fixt.
57
60
35
FH
10
Support (Window)
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Fixt
Qty
132
8
4
75
Library Lobby
Public Safety
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Corridor
Public Safety
Support (Mellg)
Fixt. Type
FB
FE
A
60
114
114
89
50
Page 15 of 33
SF
Watt
/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B137
B138
B138
B138A
B139
B140
B140A
B140B
B140C
B140D
B140E
B141
B141
B141
B142
B142
B142
B142
B142A
B142A
B142B
B145
B145
B145
B145
B146
B148
B148A
B149
B150
B151
B151
B152
B155
B156
B157
B236
B236
B236
B236
B236
Function
Support
Mail Room
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Corridor
Corridor
Communications/
Data
Corridor
Corridor
Art Studio
Support
Support
Administration
Administration
Support
Administration
Public Safety
Public Safety
Public Safety
Stair
80% of Sq. Ft.
Sample
100% of Sq.Ft.
Estimate
Area /
Illum.
Fixt. Type
F44SILL-R
F44SILL
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F44SILL-R
F44SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F44SILL-R
F22GL*
F22GL*
F44SILL-R
F41GL
F21GL
CFQ13/2
F43SILL-R*
CF23/1
F44ILL-R*
CFQ13/2
Fixt
Qty
2
2
10
2
6
7
2
2
1
4
2
4
2
21
3
1
1
2
Watt/
Fixt.
91
105
70
70
91
91
70
91
35
35
91
32
18
31
70
29
102
31
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.18
0.21
0.70
0.14
0.55
0.64
0.14
0.18
0.04
0.14
0.18
0.13
0.04
0.65
0.21
0.03
0.10
0.06
kWh/ Yr
546
630
2100
420
1638
1911
420
546
105
420
546
384
108
1953
630
87
306
186
F43SILL-R*
1
70
3000
0.07
210
I40/1
F44SILL*
F22GL*
F43SILL-R*
EI15/2
CFQ13/2
I100/1
F44SILL
F44SILL
F43SILL-R
F42GL
F42GL
F44SILL
F44SILL
F43SILL*
F43SILL*
F43SILL*
F43SILL-R*
F42GL*
F82ILL-R*
F82ILL-R*
EI15/2
3
1
9
4
2
1
40
6
4
1
3
1
1
2
2
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
40
105
35
70
30
31
100
105
105
70
63
63
105
105
78
78
78
70
63
98
98
30
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
500
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.12
0.11
0.32
0.28
0.06
0.03
4.00
0.63
0.42
0.07
0.19
0.06
0.11
0.21
0.16
0.16
0.08
0.14
0.06
0.10
0.10
0.03
360
315
945
840
180
93
2000
1890
1260
210
567
189
315
630
468
468
234
420
189
294
294
90
3000
36.58
109,734
33,020
1.1
3000
45.72
137,168
41,275
1.1
548
Page 16 of 33
SF
Watt
/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Table A- 7. Second Floor Retrofit High Efficiency T-8 and T-5 Lighting Energy Use
Room
A200
A201
A202
A203
A204
A205
A206
A207
A208
A209
A210
A210A
A211
A212
A213
A214
A215
A216
A217
A218
A219
A219
A220
A221
A222
A223
A224
A225
A226
A227
A228
A228A
A243
A244
A245
A246
A247
A248
A249
A250
A250
B200
B201
B202
B203
B204
B205
Function
Corridor
Corridor
Area /
Illum.
Fixt.Type
Fixt
Qty
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Continuing
Education
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Corridor
Empire State
College
Empire State
College
Corridor
Support
Corridor
Administration
Support
Administration
Corridor/Alcove
Administration
Conservation
(Office)
Conservation
Music (Cong)
Music (Cong)
Conservation
Remedial &
Development
Watt/
Fixt.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
kWh/ Yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3000
0.00
0
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1062
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.25
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.13
756
378
378
420
378
F43GHL
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
177
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F42GL
4
2
2
2
2
63
63
63
70
63
Page 17 of 33
SF
Watt
/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B206
B207
B208
B209
B210A
B210A
B210A
B210B
B210B
B210B
B211
B211
B211
B212
B212
B212
B213
B213A
B213A
B213B
B213B
B214
B215
B216
B217
B218
B219
B220
B221
B222
B223
B224
B225
B225A
B225A
B225A
B226
B227
B227
B228
B229
B231
B232
B234
B237
B237
B237
B239
B240
Function
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Communications/
Data
Theater
Theater
Office (Congn.)
Communications/
Data
Conservation
Theater
Theater
Communications/
Data
Corridor
Communications/
Data
Theater
Facilities
Facilities
Student Services
Facilities
Facilities
Stairs
Book Store
Storage.
Theater
Area /
Illum.
Fixt
Qty
4
4
4
4
4
10
6
4
10
6
4
10
6
4
10
6
10
1
6
1
10
4
4
4
4
Watt/
Fixt.
63
63
63
63
63
98
98
70
70
98
63
98
98
63
98
98
75
30
98
30
98
63
63
63
63
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.98
0.59
0.28
0.70
0.59
0.25
0.98
0.59
0.25
0.98
0.59
0.75
0.03
0.59
0.03
0.98
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
kWh/ Yr
756
756
756
756
756
2940
1764
840
2100
1764
756
2940
1764
756
2940
1764
2250
90
1764
90
2940
756
756
756
756
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
4
4
4
4
63
63
63
63
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
756
756
756
756
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
4
4
4
4
63
63
63
63
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
756
756
756
756
F43SILL-R
F42GL
F22ILL*
F42GL
4
2
1
2
70
63
33
63
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.28
0.13
0.03
0.13
840
378
99
378
F42GL
I40/2
F43SILL
F43SILL
F44SILL
F44SILL
F42GL
F82ILL-R
F81ILL-R
F43SILL
F43SILL
17
1
2
2
6
8
3
2
1
1
6
63
40
78
78
105
105
63
98
57
78
78
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
1.07
0.04
0.16
0.16
0.63
0.84
0.19
0.20
0.06
0.08
0.47
3213
120
468
468
1890
2520
567
588
171
234
1404
F44SILL
24
105
1000
2.52
2520
Fixt.Type
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F82ILL-R
F82ILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F82ILL-R
F42GL
F82ILL-R
F82ILL-R
F42GL
F82ILL-R
F82ILL-R
I75/1
EI15/2
F82ILL-R
EI15/2
F82ILL-R
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
Page 18 of 33
SF
Watt
/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B240
B240
B241
B242
B243
B243
B243
B243A
B245
B245A
B247
B247
B247
B248
B248
B248
B248
B248A
B248A
B248B
B249
B250
B251
B252
B253
B253A
B254
B255
B256
B257
B258
B260
B261
B262
B262
B262A
B263
B263A
B264
B265
B266
B268
B268
B268
B273
B276
B276
B277
B277
B278
Function
Area /
Illum.
Cafeteria
Facilities
Facilities
Facilities
Communications/
Data
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Cafeteria
Cafeteria
Cafeteria
Cafeteria
Cafeteria
Cafeteria
Faculty Student
Association
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Faculty Student
Association
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
16-68
28-45
41-65
Copy Room
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Student Services
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
15-70
Corridor
Corridor
Fixt.Type
F82ILL-R
MH150/1
F42GL
F82ILL-R
F44SILL
F82ILL-R
F81ILL-R
F42GL
F43SILL-R
Fixt
Qty
40
14
18
3
4
8
2
10
9
Watt/
Fixt.
98
190
63
98
105
98
57
63
70
Hour/
Yr
1000
1000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
3.92
2.66
1.13
0.29
0.42
0.78
0.11
0.63
0.63
kWh/ Yr
3920
2660
3402
882
1260
2352
342
1890
1890
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
FU2ILL-R
F43SILL
F82ILL-R
FU2ILL-R
EI15/2
F82ILL-R
F42GL
F42GL
4
9
9
1
4
62
6
2
16
4
3
70
70
70
52
78
98
52
30
98
63
63
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.28
0.63
0.63
0.05
0.31
6.08
0.31
0.06
1.57
0.25
0.19
840
1890
1890
156
936
18228
936
180
4704
756
567
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
4
2
1
4
7
2
6
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.28
0.14
0.07
0.28
0.49
0.14
0.42
840
420
210
840
1470
420
1260
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F44SILL
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F82ILL-R
I100/1
I 75/1
F42GL
F22ILL*
F43SILL-R
F22ILL*
F43SILL-R
F22ILL*
15
4
4
6
2
2
4
11
1
2
2
2
2
2
7
11
3
6
9
26
1
8
6
70
70
70
70
105
70
70
78
63
63
63
70
70
70
98
100
75
63
33
70
33
70
33
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
1.05
0.28
0.28
0.42
0.21
0.14
0.28
0.86
0.06
0.13
0.13
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.69
1.10
0.23
0.38
0.30
1.82
0.03
0.56
0.20
3150
840
840
1260
630
420
840
2574
189
378
378
420
420
420
2058
3300
675
1134
891
5460
99
1680
594
Page 19 of 33
SF
Watt
/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B280
B281
B287
B287
C201
C201
C201A
C202
C203
C207
C208
C208C208C210A
C211
C214
C216
C217
C220
C221
C221A
C222
C223
C225A
C225A
C226A
C227
C227A
C227A
C227A
C228
C229
C229
C230
C231
C232
C234
C238
D201
D201
D201C
D201C
D202A
D203
D205
D205
D205A
Function
Student Services
Mechanical
Storage
Mechanical
Storage
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Conservation
Faculty Student
Association
Bath
Kitchen
Kitchen Hoods
Freezer
Faculty Student
Association
Electrical/Janitoria
l/ Storage.
Storage
Facilities
Conservation
Music
Remedial
Development
Conservation
Facilities
Classroom
Room
Corridor
Corridor
Classroom
Corridor
Corridor
Classroom
Classroom
Conservation
Conservation
Nursing
Student Services
Student Services
Faculty Student
Association
Valence
Administration
Administration
Area /
Illum.
Fixt
Qty
2
3
1
Watt/
Fixt.
70
60
75
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.14
0.18
0.08
kWh/ Yr
420
540
225
F22GL
1
35
3000
0.04
105
F44SILL
I60/1
F82ILL-R
F44SILL
F44SILL
F82ILL-R
9
3
6
4
4
1
105
60
98
105
105
98
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.95
0.18
0.59
0.42
0.42
0.10
2835
540
1764
1260
1260
294
F42GL
F22ILL*
CF23/1
CFT32/1-L
F22ILL*
3
22
4
2
4
63
33
29
34
33
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.19
0.73
0.12
0.07
0.13
567
2178
348
204
396
F82ILL-R
2
98
3000
0.20
588
F42GL*
F42GL*
F42GL
F43SILL-R*
F42GL*
F43SILL
F43SILL
3
1
10
2
2
2
2
63
63
63
70
63
78
78
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.19
0.06
0.63
0.14
0.13
0.16
0.16
567
189
1890
420
378
468
468
F42GL
EI15/2
F82ILL-R
F44SILL
F41GL
F43SILL-R
CF23/1
F43SILL-R
F42GL
EI15/2
F43SILL
F43SILL
F82ILL-R
F44SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F41GL
F43SILL
F41GL
F43SILL-R
11
2
2
9
1
6
4
9
11
4
12
15
2
4
2
7
1
2
1
2
63
30
98
105
32
70
29
70
63
30
78
78
98
105
78
78
32
78
32
70
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.69
0.06
0.20
0.95
0.03
0.42
0.12
0.63
0.69
0.12
0.94
1.17
0.20
0.42
0.16
0.55
0.03
0.16
0.03
0.14
2079
180
588
2835
96
1260
348
1890
2079
360
2808
3510
588
1260
468
1638
96
468
96
420
CFQ26/1
F43SILL
F41GL
F43SILL
5
13
9
2
33
78
32
78
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.17
1.01
0.29
0.16
495
3042
864
468
Fixt.Type
F43SILL-R
I60/1
I75/1
Page 20 of 33
SF
Watt
/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
D205B
D205D
D206
D207
D208
D209
D210
D211
D212
D214
D214
D215
D219
D220
D221
D222
D223
D225
D226
D227A
D227B
D227B
D228
D228
D228
D229
D229
D229
D230
D231
D232
Function
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Classroom
Area /
Illum.
Classroom
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Communications/
Data
Valance
Facilities
Storage
Storage
Storage
Corridor
Administration
Administration
Administration
Administration
Fixt.Type
F43SILL
F43SILL
F44SILL
F44SILL
F44SILL
F44SILL
F44SILL
FU2ILL
F44SILL-R
F42GL
I120/1
F82ILL-R
F44SILL
F44SILL
F44SILL
F44SILL
F44SILL
Fixt
Qty
2
2
7
2
2
2
4
1
4
12
43
4
7
2
2
2
9
Watt/
Fixt.
78
78
105
105
105
105
105
59
91
63
120
98
105
105
105
105
105
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.16
0.16
0.74
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.42
0.06
0.36
0.76
5.16
0.39
0.74
0.21
0.21
0.21
0.95
kWh/ Yr
468
468
2205
630
630
630
1260
177
1092
2268
15480
1176
2205
630
630
630
2835
CFQ26/1
F82ILL-R
F82ILL-R
F81ILL-R
F82ILL-R
F43SILL-R
F21GL
CFQ13/2
F42GL
F41GL
CFQ13/2
F44SILL
F44SILL
F44SILL
5
2
1
2
4
24
1
4
1
8
5
3
2
2
33
98
98
57
98
70
18
31
63
32
31
105
105
105
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.17
0.20
0.10
0.11
0.39
1.68
0.02
0.12
0.06
0.26
0.16
0.32
0.21
0.21
495
588
294
342
1176
5040
54
372
189
768
465
945
630
630
3000
84.26
252,777
3000
105.32
315,971
1058
80% of Sq. Ft.
Sample
100% of Sq.Ft.
Estimate
SF
Watt
/SF
81,068
1.04
101,335
1.04
SF
Watt
/SF
Table A- 8. Third Floor Retrofit High Efficiency T-8 and T-5 Lighting Energy Use
Room
A300
A301
A302
A303
A304
A305
A306
A306A
Function
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Math
Computer Science
Library Master
Control
Library Math
Computer Science
Area /
Illum.
Fixt.Type
Fixt
Qty
Watt/
Fixt.
0
0
0
0
0
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
kWh/ Yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3000
3000
0.00
0.00
0
0
0
3000
0.00
0
Page 21 of 33
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
A310
A311
A314
A315
A316
A317
A323
A324
B300
B300A
B300B
B302
B303
B304
B305
B305
B307
B308
B309
B310
B312
B312A
B312B
B312C
B312D
B315A
B315A
B315B
B315B
B328
B329
B330
B330C
B333
B333
B333
B335
B339
B358
B358
B360
B361
B362
B362A
B362A
B362A
B362B
B362B
Function
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Study
Library Media
Copy Center
Library Study
Corridor/Stair
Classroom
Classroom
Classroom
Music
Math Computer
Science
Music
Math Computer
Science
Music
Computer Lab
Corridor
Lobby
Lobby
Lobby
Stair
Area /
Illum.
15-40
60
15-40
60
60
60
40
50
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Classroom
Science & Tech
Corridor
Corridor
Nursing
Office
Storage
Conference Room
Nursing
Corridor w/Lights
& Skylights
Corridor w/sky
78
90
Fixt.Type
Fixt
Qty
Watt/
Fixt.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
kWh/ Yr
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
F43SILL
F42GL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL-R
F43SILL
F43SILL
2
4
6
8
8
8
5
1
9
0
78
63
78
78
78
78
70
78
78
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.00
0.16
0.25
0.47
0.62
0.62
0.62
0.35
0.08
0.70
0
468
756
1404
1872
1872
1872
1050
234
2106
F43SILL-R
F43SILL
3
6
70
78
3000
3000
0.21
0.47
630
1404
F43SILL-R
F43SILL
F43SILL
F42GL
F42GL
F43SILL
F43SILL-R
CFQ13/2
F82ILL-R
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F42GL
F43SILL
13
8
5
3
2
5
4
4
3
1
2
2
4
2
17
70
78
78
63
63
78
70
31
98
78
78
78
78
63
78
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.91
0.62
0.39
0.19
0.13
0.39
0.28
0.12
0.29
0.08
0.16
0.16
0.31
0.13
1.33
2730
1872
1170
567
378
1170
840
372
882
234
468
468
936
378
3978
I120/1
EI15/2
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
CFT40/2
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
12
1
2
15
42
12
2
4
6
120
30
78
78
78
85
78
78
78
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
1.44
0.03
0.16
1.17
3.28
1.02
0.16
0.31
0.47
4320
90
468
3510
9828
3060
468
936
1404
F41GL
8
32
3000
0.26
768
F21GL
F42GL
F22GL
F21GL
4
1
14
12
18
63
35
18
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.07
0.06
0.49
0.22
216
189
1470
648
Page 22 of 33
SF
Watt
/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B362B
B362C
B362C
B362D
B362D
B362E
B366A
B366B
B366B
B366C
B372
B373
B373
B375
B375
B375
B376
B377
B378
B379
B380
B381
B383
B383B
B384
B384A
B384B
B385
B386
B387
B387
B389
B390
B390
B391
B391A
C300
C300A
Function
Area /
Illum.
Corridor
45
Corridor
45
Corridor
Skylight w/Lights
45
115
Corridor
Remedial & Dev.
Comp Lab
Remedial & Dev.
Comp Lab
80
Fixt
Qty
2
1
1
7
2
4
9
8
2
4
8
Watt/
Fixt.
30
63
31
63
30
31
63
18
31
63
63
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.06
0.06
0.03
0.44
0.06
0.12
0.57
0.14
0.06
0.25
0.50
kWh/ Yr
180
189
93
1323
180
372
1701
432
186
756
1512
8
63
3000
0.50
1512
F42GL
F43SILL
2
13
63
78
3000
3000
0.13
1.01
378
3042
I75/1
F43SILL
F43SILL
4
2
2
75
78
78
3000
3000
3000
0.30
0.16
0.16
900
468
468
F43SILL
2
78
3000
0.16
468
F43SILL
2
78
3000
0.16
468
F43SILL
2
78
3000
0.16
468
F43SILL
2
78
3000
0.16
468
F43SILL
2
78
3000
0.16
468
F42GL
12
63
3000
0.76
2268
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F42GL
6
2
2
4
18
78
78
78
78
63
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.47
0.16
0.16
0.31
1.13
1404
468
468
936
3402
F42GL
18
63
3000
1.13
3402
F42GL
18
63
3000
1.13
3402
F43SILL
F42GL
3
18
78
63
3000
3000
0.23
1.13
702
3402
F42GL
18
63
3000
1.13
3402
F43SILL
F43SILL
2
4
78
78
3000
3000
0.16
0.31
468
936
F43SILL
2
78
3000
0.16
468
4
10
32
63
3000
3000
0.13
0.63
384
1890
Fixt.Type
EI15/2
F42GL
CFQ13/2
F42GL
EI15/2
CFQ13/2
F42GL
F21GL
CFQ13/2
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
Remedial & Dev.
Supt. Ctr.
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Remedial &
Development
Support/Admin
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science
Math Computer
Science Terminal
Corridor/Stair
33
F41GL
F42GL
Page 23 of 33
SF
Watt
/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
C300B
C300C
C300D
C300E
C301
C302
C303
C304
C305
C305
C306
C312
C312
C313
C313A
C318
C318A
C322
C323
C324
C329
C330
C330
D307
D312
D312
D312
D329
D329
D332
D334
D339
D339
D346
D350
D350
D350
D350A
D350A
D350A
D351
D352
D353
D354
D355
D356
D357
D358
D359
D361
D362
D363
Function
Corridor/Stair
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Biology
Biology
Area /
Illum.
80
33
80
Storage
Classroom
Micro Biology Lab
Corridor
Corridor
Classroom
Lab
Prep Room
lab
Physics
Greenhouse
Corridor
Phys Ed Office
Phys Ed Office
Bathroom, Mens
Lockers
Storage
Storage
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Office Space
Corridor, office
Faculty Office
80
80
65
45
Fixt.Type
F44SILL
F44SILL
F44SILL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
FU2ILL
F43SILL
I75/1
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F42GL
F22GL
F42GL
F42GL
EI15/2
F42GL
FU2ILL
F42GL
I60/1
F22GL
FU2ILL
FU2ILL
F42GL
Fixt
Qty
3
30
5
10
2
2
2
30
48
1
10
6
4
56
2
64
2
6
40
10
25
40
1
7
18
1
7
4
16
16
44
Watt/
Fixt.
105
105
105
63
63
63
63
63
63
63
59
78
75
63
70
63
70
70
63
35
63
63
30
63
59
63
60
35
59
59
63
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.32
3.15
0.53
0.63
0.13
0.13
0.13
1.89
3.02
0.06
0.59
0.47
0.30
3.53
0.14
4.03
0.14
0.42
2.52
0.35
1.58
2.52
0.03
0.44
1.06
0.06
0.42
0.14
0.94
0.94
2.77
kWh/ Yr
945
9450
1575
1890
378
378
378
5670
9072
189
1770
1404
900
10584
420
12096
420
1260
7560
1050
4725
7560
90
1323
3186
189
1260
420
2832
2832
8316
F42GL
FU2ILL
FU2ILL
F42GL
EI5/2
CFT40/2
F42GL
EI5/3
CFT40/2
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL
2
2
17
5
2
6
5
2
6
2
2
2
4
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
2
63
59
59
63
10
85
63
10
85
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
70
78
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.13
0.12
1.00
0.32
0.02
0.51
0.32
0.02
0.51
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.28
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.28
0.16
378
354
3009
945
60
1530
945
60
1530
420
420
420
840
420
420
420
420
420
420
840
468
Page 24 of 33
SF
Watt
/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
D364
D365
D365
D365
D365
D366
D367
D368
D369
D370
D371
D372
D373
D374
D375
D387
D392
D393
Function
Faculty Office
Area /
Illum.
Conf Room
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Corridor, office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Fixt.Type
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F42GL
I75/1
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F42GL
F43SILL
F43SILL
Fixt
Qty
2
7
6
1
6
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Watt/
Fixt.
78
78
78
63
75
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
78
63
78
78
1135
80% of Sq. Ft.
Sample
100% of Sq.Ft.
Estimate
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.16
0.55
0.47
0.06
0.45
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.13
0.16
0.16
kWh/ Yr
468
1638
1404
189
1350
468
468
468
468
468
468
468
468
468
468
378
468
468
3000
75.61
226,824
3000
94.51
283,530
SF
Watt
/SF
89,362
0.85
111,702
0.85
SF
Watt
/SF
Table A- 9. Fourth Floor Retrofit High Efficiency T-8 and T-5 Lighting Energy Use
Room
B400
B402
B402
B403
B404
B405
B406
B407
B408
B408A
B408B
B408C
B408D
B409
B410
B411
B412
B414
B415
B415
B416
B417
B418
B419
Function
Office
Mechanical
Mechanical
Classroom
Classroom
Office
Office
Office
Classroom
Office
Office
Office
Office
Classroom
Office
Office
Office
Classroom
Office
Classroom
Office
Classroom
Classroom
Storage
Area/
Illum.
35-60
46-66
60-75
60-75
60-75
46-66
54
54
54
46-66
54
54
Fixt.Type
F44SILL-R
EI15/2
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F44SILL-R
F44SILL-R
F44SILL-R
F44SILL-R
F43SILL-R
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F44SILL
F42GL
Fixt
Qty
4
2
8
8
9
2
2
2
6
2
2
2
2
9
4
4
4
9
4
6
4
6
4
1
Watt/
Fixt.
91
30
63
70
70
70
70
70
70
91
91
91
91
70
63
63
63
70
63
70
63
70
105
63
Page 25 of 33
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.36
0.06
0.50
0.56
0.63
0.14
0.14
0.14
0.42
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.18
0.63
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.63
0.25
0.42
0.25
0.42
0.42
0.06
kWh/ Yr
1092
180
1512
1680
1890
420
420
420
1260
546
546
546
546
1890
756
756
756
1890
756
1260
756
1260
1260
189
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
B421
B421
B421
B423
B424
B425
B426
B427
B429
B430
B430
B431
B432
B433
B434
B435
B436
B437
B438
B439
B440
B440
B440
B440
B441
B442
B442A
B443
B444
B450
B450
B450
B450
B452
B452
C400
C401
C402
C403
C405
C407
C408
C410
C411
C414
C415
C416
C417
C418
C419
C420
C421
C422
Function
Restroom
Restroom
Restroom
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Corridor
Lobby
Lobby
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Corridor
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Conference Room
Conference Room
Conference Room
Conference Room
Stairs
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Conference Room
Conference Room
Conference Room
Conference Room
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Stair well
Office
Office
Office
Woodshop
Art Studio
Welding Studio
Office
Office
Office
Office
Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Faculty Office
Office
Office
Area/
Illum.
36
36
36
36
26-60
36
36
36
36
36
36
36
40-66
40-66
40
50
Fixt.Type
F22GL
F22GL*
I100/1
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F43SILL
F43SILL-R
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F43SILL
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F42GL
F42GL
EI15/2
F22GL*
I150/1
MH70/1
F42GL
F43SILL-R
F43SILL-R
EI15/2
F42GL
EI15/2
FU2ILL
I150/1
MH70/1
F44SILL
I60/1
F41GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F22ILL*
F42GL
F43SILL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F43SILL
F42GL
F42GL
Fixt
Qty
1
1
1
4
4
4
2
4
6
6
4
4
4
4
4
5
4
2
4
4
1
20
14
5
1
6
3
1
3
1
9
9
5
1
2
4
4
4
4
6
80
2
4
4
4
4
4
2
2
2
2
4
4
Watt/
Fixt.
35
35
100
63
63
63
70
63
70
78
70
63
63
63
63
78
63
70
63
63
30
35
150
95
63
70
70
30
63
30
59
150
95
105
60
32
63
63
63
33
63
78
63
63
63
63
63
78
78
78
78
63
63
Page 26 of 33
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.04
0.04
0.10
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.14
0.25
0.42
0.47
0.28
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.39
0.25
0.14
0.25
0.25
0.03
0.70
2.10
0.48
0.06
0.42
0.21
0.03
0.19
0.03
0.53
1.35
0.48
0.11
0.12
0.13
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.20
5.04
0.16
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.16
0.25
0.25
kWh/ Yr
105
105
300
756
756
756
420
756
1260
1404
840
756
756
756
756
1170
756
420
756
756
90
2100
6300
1425
189
1260
630
90
567
90
1593
4050
1425
315
360
384
756
756
756
594
15120
468
756
756
756
756
756
468
468
468
468
756
756
SF
Watt
/SF
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Room
C423
C425
C426
C427
C429
C429
C429
C430
C430
C431
C432
C432
C433
C439
C439A
C439B
C439B
C439B
C440
C441
C441
C441A
C443
C443
C445
Function
Office
Office
Office
Office
Studio
Studio
Studio
Drawing Studio
Drawing Studio
Classroom
Classroom
Classroom, open
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor, 1/2 off
Corridor, 1/2 off
Corridor, 1/2 off
Faculty Office
Shop,
weld/paint/ex
proof
Faculty Office
KILN
Corridor
Corridor
Corridor
Area/
Illum.
43-73
50?
Fixt.Type
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
F42GL
I120/1
I75/1
F42GL
I120/1
F44SILL
F43SILL-R
I75/1
F43SILL
F43SILL-R
F44SILL
EI15/2
F42GL
I75/1
F43SILL
Fixt
Qty
4
4
4
4
45
22
1
27
10
8
15
5
8
9
4
1
10
11
2
1
Watt/
Fixt.
63
63
63
63
63
120
75
63
120
105
70
75
78
70
105
30
63
75
78
31
Hour/
Yr
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
kW
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
2.84
2.64
0.08
1.70
1.20
0.84
1.05
0.38
0.62
0.63
0.42
0.03
0.63
0.83
0.16
0.03
kWh/ Yr
756
756
756
756
8505
7920
225
5103
3600
2520
3150
1125
1872
1890
1260
90
1890
2475
468
93
2
4
9
3
4
78
63
105
177
63
3000
3000
3000
3000
3000
0.16
0.25
0.95
0.53
0.25
468
756
2835
1593
756
3000
45.01
135,027
56,534
0.80
3000
56.26
168,784
70,668
0.80
SF
Watt
/SF
CFQ13/2
F43SILL
F42GL
F44SILL
F43GL
F42GL
616
80% of Sq. Ft.
Sample
100% of Sq.Ft.
Estimate
Table A- 10. Lighting Energy Use Floors 1-4 Retrofit High Efficiency T-8 and T-5
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
4th Floor
Total
Cumulative
Lighting (kW)
36.58
84.26
75.61
45.01
241.45
Total Floor
Area (SF)
33,020
81,068
89,362
56,534
259,984
Energy Density
(W/SF)
1.11
1.04
0.85
0.80
0.93
Annual Energy
(kWh)
109,734
252,777
226,824
135,027
724,362
Annual Cost ($/YR)
$
10,315.00
$
23,761.04
$
21,321.46
$
12,692.54
$
68,090.03
Table A-11 summarizes the lighting savings that can be expected in the main campus building if
existing T-12 and T-8 fluorescent fixtures are retrofit with high efficiency T-8 and T-5 fixtures.
Page 27 of 33
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Table A- 11. Lighting Retrofit Energy Cost Savings
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
4th Floor
Total
Exist
Annual Energy
(kWh)
131,112
394,476
362,403
194,697
1,082,688
Retrofit
Annual
Energy (kWh)
109,734
252,777
226,824
135,027
724,362
Savings
Annual
Energy
(kWh)
21,378
141,699
135,579
59,670
358,326
Exist
Annual Energy
(Cost $)
$ 12,324.53
$ 37,080.74
$ 34,065.88
$ 18,301.52
$ 101,772.67
Retrofit
Annual
Energy
(Cost $)
$ 10,315.00
$ 23,761.04
$ 21,321.46
$ 12,692.54
$ 68,090.03
Savings
Annual Energy
(Cost $)
$ 2,009.53
$ 13,319.70
$ 12,744.42
$ 5,608.98
$ 33,682.64
The lighting assessment performed identified potential annual energy cost savings of $33,682.64
for the efficiency gains from the replacement of existing T-12 and T-8 with high efficiency T-8 &
T-5 fixtures. This energy savings was tabulated based on the replacement / retrofit of 2,519 total
fixtures. At an estimate of $200 for the retrofit kit, the lighting retrofit / replacement project
would have a project cost for equipment alone of $503,000 resulting in a simple payback of 15
years.
Interior Lighting Control Measures
The interior lighting at FLCC consists of a combination of T-12, T-8, and T-5 fluorescent,
compact fluorescent, incandescent and metal halide fixtures. The college has move forward with
the installation of occupancy sensors as part of the staged replacement of existing T-12
fluorescent fixtures with T-8 and T-5 fluorescent fixtures. Based on the data collected during the
site assessment, areas consisting of corridors, mechanical rooms, kitchen and dining, storage, and
select classrooms and offices have at this point not undergone the staged replacement and do not
have sensors to automatically turn off lighting during periods of no occupancy.
Energy savings through lighting control measures will be realized in, not only direct electrical
savings from reduce runtime hours, but in reduced cooling load on the HVAC system. Lighting
control measures most commonly implemented are occupancy sensors and light level sensors.
Occupancy sensors detect when a space is occupied by using passive infrared, ultrasonic, or a
combination of the two technologies. Once the heat or movement of the occupant is no longer
detected, and after a preset delay time, the sensor will emit a signal to extinguish the lights.
Occupancy sensors used alone are good for low or intermittent use areas such as storage rooms,
restrooms, and even corridors.
Light level sensors have a photoelectric "eye" that measures the illumination in a room.
Threshold on and off values can be set to respond to specific lighting conditions. These sensors
can operate on/off switching of various luminaires or lamps within luminaires and they can also
operate a continuous dimming system. Continuous dimming system will obviously cost more
than switching systems but they have greater user satisfaction because the change in lighting
levels is not as noticeable.
For the purpose of this analysis occupancy sensors are evaluated and examples of areas that
would benefit from day lighting controls are presented. To further assess the savings potential
from the implementation of occupancy sensors areas identified as having no lighting control are
Page 28 of 33
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
presented the baseline energy presented in Table A- 12 was tabulated from the existing lighting
data contained in tables A-1 through A-5.
Table A- 12. Baseline Lighting Energy in Areas with No Occupancy Sensors
Floor
1st Floor
2nd Floor
3rd Floor
4th Floor
Total
Area
Qty
Fixture Qty
Hours
kW
kWh
Energy
$/kWh
Annual
Energy Cost
18
42
30
60
75
311
187
383
3000
3000
3000
3000
9.509
34.112
16.147
85.699
28,527
102,336
48,441
257,097
$0.094
$0.094
$0.094
$0.094
$ 2,681.54
$ 9,619.58
$ 4,553.45
$ 24,167.12
150
956
3000
145
436,401
$0.094
$ 41,021.69
The baseline fixture data from Table A- 12 was utilized to calculate the energy use at an arbitrary
20% reduction in hours lighting hours. The resulting energy use to in a 20% reduction in lighting
hours due to the installation of occupancy sensors is presented in Table A- 13.
Table A- 13. Lighting Energy in Areas Installing Occupancy Sensors; 20% Reduction in Lighting Hours
Floor
First
Second
Third
Fourth
Total
Area
Qty
Fixture Qty
Hours
18
42
30
60
75
311
187
383
2400
2400
2400
2400
150
956
2400
kW
kWh
9.509
34.112
16.147
85.699
145
Energy
$/kWh
Annual
Energy Cost
22,822
81,869
38,753
205,678
$0.094
$0.094
$0.094
$0.094
$ 2,145.23
$ 7,695.67
$ 3,642.76
$ 19,333.69
349,121
$0.094
$ 32,817.36
Table A- 14. Energy and Cost Savings; Installation of Occupancy Sensors
Baseline energy use and cost
Energy use and cost occupancy sensors installed
Savings
kWh
436,401
349,121
87,280
Annual Energy Cost
$ 41,021.69
$ 32,817.36
$ 8,204.33
Occupancy sensors range in price from $50 to $250 depending on type and application, with
additional cost for installation. For the purpose of this analysis a median cost of $150 is used, it is
assumed that FLCC would supply labor to install and that one sensor is sufficient for each room
area presented. Installing 150 sensors to control 956 fixtures would have a cost of $22,500.
Energy savings potential of $8,204.33 will result in a simple payback of 2.7 years.
Day Lighting Controls
During the field assessment efficiency opportunities were identified to implement day lighting
controls in multiple areas of the campus. Classrooms and corridors with exterior exposure
received an abundance of natural light and implementation of day lighting controls would realize
energy reduction and cost benefit. Figure A-4 illustrates such an opportunity on the third floor B
Page 29 of 33
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
wing where skylights allow an abundance of natural light while the 24-inch fluorescent fixtures
remain on.
Figure A- 1 Opportunity for Day Lighting Controls
Exterior Lighting
Exterior lighting at FLCC consists of a combination of parking lot lights; roof mounted building
lights, pedestrian access lighting and security lighting. The energy assessment identifies energy
use from exterior lighting on meter MDP-1 on the order of 15kW-20kW. Figure A-1 a shade plot
of meter MDP-1 from November 13, 2009 to December 14, 2009 illustrates the energy use
attributed to exterior lighting as a shaded band where the exterior lights turn on at 5:00 PM and
turn off at 8:00 AM.
Conversation with facility operations indicate that exterior lights are computer controlled and are
adjusted based on seasonal daylight variance. It is estimated that energy use attributed to exterior
light is in a range between 76,650 kWh / year and 102,200 kWh / year.
@ 15 kW x 14 hrs/day = 76,650 kWh/year
@ 20 kW x 14 hrs/day = 102,200 kWh/year
Retrofit of Exterior Parking Lot Lighting with LED Exterior Parking Lot Lighting
This assessment is presented as a high level assessment of the benefits of the retrofit of
existing exterior parking lot metal halide fixtures with exterior parking lot light emitting
Page 30 of 33
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
diode (LED) fixtures. For the purpose of this analysis existing parking lot fixtures are
assumed to be a nominal 320 watts and draw approximately 346 watts.
The comparison of the photopic and energy performance of the existing metal halide
(MH) fixtures to LED fixtures is presented in Table A- 15.
Table A- 15 Comparison of Photopic and Energy Performance1
Luminaire
MH
LED (High Power)
LED (Low Power)
Average
Illuminance
(Footcandles)
1.8
1.9
0.9
Minimum
Illuminance
(Footcandles)
0.5
0.6
0.3
Coefficient of
Variation
0.53
0.33
0.32
Average to
Minimum
Uniformity
3.6 : 1
3.2 : 1
2.9 : 1
Average Power
(Watts)
346
149
52
Based on the information provided in Table A- 15 the power consumption of LED
fixtures operating at high power can result in a 56.9% reduction in energy consumption.
The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) recommends
maintained illuminance values for parking lots of 0.2 footcandles (FC) for typical in use
conditions and 0.5 FC for enhanced security. However IESNA also states that “during
periods of non-use, the illuminance of certain parking facilities may be turned off or
reduced to conserve energy.”
To further reduce the energy consumption of parking lot lights, a bi-level lighting system
utilizing motion sensors to detect periods of no motion may be desirable. This system
would implement a predetermined time delay feature to reduce the light output from high
power to low power further reducing the energy consumption from parking lot lights.
To calculate the savings potential of the retrofit the energy consumption for exterior
lighting, the estimated energy use, in a range between 76,650 kWh / year and 102,200 kWh /
year, is multiplied by 56.9%, resulting in energy reduction in a range between 43,614 kWh/year
and 58,152 kWh/year. This reduction would result in an annual savings of between $4,099.71 and
$5,466.28. Additional savings would be realized if a bi-level system is implemented.
1
U.S DOE Solid State Lighting Technology Demonstration GATEWAY Program Report
Page 31 of 33
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
MDP-3 Power Use Patterns
24
22
22
20
20
18
18
16
16
Hour of Day
Hour of Day
MDP-1 Power Use Patterns
24
14
12
10
14
12
10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2
2
0
0
13 1415 16 17 1819 20 2122 23 2425 26 27 2829 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14
13 1415 16 17 1819 20 2122 23 2425 26 27 2829 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14
Nov
Nov
Day (MAX/MIN =
Dec
576.51/ 210.94 kW)
Day (MAX/MIN =
Dec
174.21/ 0.00 kW)
MDP-4 Power Use Patterns
24
22
20
18
Hour of Day
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
13 1415 16 17 1819 20 2122 23 2425 26 27 2829 30 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1112 13 14
Nov
Dec
Day (MAX/MIN =
256.51/ 33.79 kW)
Figure A- 2. Power Use Patterns – Submetered MDPs
Figure A- 3 Exterior light atop Gymnasium
Page 32 of 33
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX A. LIGHTING ASSESSMENT
Figure A- 4 Exterior Parking Lights
Page 33 of 33
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Appendix B
Plug Load Assessment
To understand the impact of Plug Loads on energy use at Finger Lakes Community College
(FLCC), O’Brien & Gere performed a Plug Load assessment.
Methodology
This Plug Load assessment is based on data obtained from FLCC and an on-site room by room
evaluation performed. This room by room evaluation was performed to provide a sample and
document the approximate quantity and type of plug loads throughout the campus. Plug loads
identified in this assessment are separated into three major categories consisting of office and
personal equipment, information technology equipment and other. The other category consists of
specialty equipment or areas with equipment and systems that are unique to the particular area.
Quantification of energy use in these areas is difficult without sub-metering and considered
outside of the scope of this evaluation. For these areas this assessment identifies the specialty
equipment and systems, but does not quantify energy use.
Tables B-1 through B-5 list and quantify the sample of plug loads identified in the assessment and
Figure B-1 quantifies energy use for the over 900 plug loads quantified during this assessment.
Page 1 of 16
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Table B- 1. A-Wing Plug Load Assessment Field Sample.
Microwave
A-118
A-119
A-122
A-133
A-134
A-145
A-146
A-147
A-148
A-224
A-227
A-300
A-311
Totals
Toaster
Coffee
Maker
Portable
Heater
Dehumidifier
1
Refrigerator
Tv
Water Cooler
Projector
Other
20
20
Total
21
20
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
6
1
1
1
56
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
2
6
0
3
3
Dehumidifier
Refrigerators
1
1
0
0
0
40
Table B- 2. B-Wing Plug Load Assessment Field Sample.
B-100
B-125
B128
B-129A
B131
B132
B133
B137
B-148
B-152
B-1Admin
B-1COS
B-208
B-215
Microwave
1
Toaster
1
1
1
2
Coffee
Maker
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
Portable
Heater
1
1
1
1
Tv
Water Cooler
Projector
Other
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
Page 2 of 16
May 15, 2010
4
3
1
2
8
1
3
1
1
1
3
3
1
1
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Table B- 2. B-Wing Plug Load Assessment Field Sample.
Microwave
B-222
B-229
B-234
B-242
B-245
B-252
B-262
B-265
B-2Bookstore
B-2Maint
B-2Stage 13
B-3 D Rands
B-304
B-308
B-310
B-312
B-317
B-318
B-319
B-322
B-329
B-333
B-342
B-344
B-345
B-353
B-362
B-366
B-372
B-379
B-380
B-381
B-385
Toaster
Coffee
Maker
1
Portable
Heater
Dehumidifier
Refrigerators
Tv
Water Cooler
Projector
Other
Total
1
2
8
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
3
20
3
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Page 3 of 16
1
1
1
2
8
2
2
2
1
2
4
1
1
1
3
20
3
2
1
2
2
1
5
1
2
4
1
2
1
1
2
1
1
1
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Table B- 2. B-Wing Plug Load Assessment Field Sample.
B-400
B-403
B-414
B-415
B-416
B-426A
B-429
B-431
B-440
Totals
Microwave
1
Toaster
1
Coffee
Maker
1
Portable
Heater
Dehumidifier
1
Refrigerators
1
Tv
Water Cooler
Projector
Other
Total
5
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
133
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
14
8
32
5
1
22
1
1
1
1
10
39
Table B- 3. C-Wing Plug Load Assessment Field Sample.
Microwave
C-207
C-210
C-212
C-217
C-224
C-233
C-238
C-302
C-304
C-310
C-319
C-320
C-328
C-328
C-402
C-405
Toaster
Coffee
Maker
Portable
Heater
Humidifier
Refrigerator
Tv
Water Cooler
Projector
Other
Total
2
32
1
1
1
4
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
Page 4 of 16
2
32
1
1
1
4
2
1
2
3
4
2
1
1
2
10
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Table B- 3. C-Wing Plug Load Assessment Field Sample.
C-409
C-415
C-416
C-426
C-427
C-429
C-430
C-431
C-441
Totals
Microwave
1
Toaster
Coffee
Maker
Portable
Heater
Humidifier
Refrigerator
1
Tv
Water Cooler
Projector
Other
Total
1
1
3
1
1
1
1
11
7
2
2
98
1
1
1
11
7
1
1
8
1
4
3
1
10
2
1
1
0
1
68
Table B- 4. D-Wing Plug Load Assessment Field Sample.
Microwave
D-201
D-201
D-201A
D-202
D-205D
D-205D
D-216
D-233
D-231
D-232
D-311
D-334
D-368
D-369
D-370
D-371
Toaster
Coffee
Maker
1
Portable
Heater
Humidifier
Refrigerator
Tv
Water Cooler
Projector
Other
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
8
1
1
1
1
Page 5 of 16
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
10
10
3
1
1
1
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Table B- 4. D-Wing Plug Load Assessment Field Sample.
Microwave
D-371
D-372
D-373
D-373
D-375
D-375
D-385
D-385
D-390
D-391
D-Fin Aide
D-403
Totals
Toaster
Coffee
Maker
Portable
Heater
Humidifier
Refrigerator
Tv
Water Cooler
Projector
Other
Total
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
2
5
20
74
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
8
1
3
0
2
10
0
0
10
0
0
2
20
44
Table B- 5. A Wing Through D-Wing Plug Load Assessment Field Sample.
Microwave
A-Wing SubTotal
B-Wing SubTotal
C-Wing SubTotal
D-Wing SubTotal
Total
Toaster
Coffee
Maker
Portable
Heater
Dehumidifier
Refrigerator
Tv
Water Cooler
Projector
Other
Total
2
2
6
0
3
3
0
0
0
40
56
14
8
32
5
1
22
1
1
10
39
133
8
1
4
3
2
10
1
0
1
68
98
8
0
10
0
0
10
0
0
2
44
74
32
11
52
8
6
45
2
1
13
191
361
Page 6 of 16
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Energy Consumption from Identified Plug Loads
To assess the impact that the identified plug loads and IT equipment have on campus energy use
the data from the field sample and the IT equipment inventory are entered into the plug load
model shown in Table B- 6. Based on this assessment the total energy consumption attributed to
the nine hundred forty nine loads (see Figure B-1) listed on the model total 451,290 kWh annual
approximately 6.9% of the total campus load. At $0.094/kWh this equates to $42,421
A closer look at the plug load energy consumption in the model indicates that the single largest
consumer is consumers, monitors and IT equipment totaling $37,691 of the $42,421 annual cost
(approximately 89% of plug load energy cost). Opportunities for computer and IT equipment
efficiencies are discussed in the IT Equipment section of this report.
Page 7 of 16
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
$
Average Electricity Cost =
Equipment
Coffee Maker
Computer & Monitor
Computer & Monitor1 (Energy Star)
Laser Printer
Laser Printer (Energy Star)
Copier 0-20 ppm
Copier 0-20 ppm (Energy Star)
Copier 21-44 ppm 3
Copier 21-44 ppm (Eneregy Star)
Copier >44 ppm
Copier >44 ppm (Energy Star)
Fax Machine
Fax Machine (Energy Star)
Fan
Desk Lamp
Microwave
Tabletop Fridge (<2.5 cu.ft.)
Small Fridge (2.5-6.4 cu.ft.)
Television
VCR
Space Heater
0.094
per kWh
Qty
In
Use*
Typ Use,
Hours/Day**
Average
Running
Wattage
Cycle
Time***
Monthly
kWh
Annual
Cost
Each
Total
Annual
Cost
Months/Year
52
558
1
127
1
20
1
20
1
20
1
9
1
1
30
32
25
20
2
3
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
15
4
5
0.5
24
24
3
900
140
140
80
80
115
115
177
177
313
313
350
350
115
75
1,000
―
―
80
33%
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
―
100%
100%
100%
―
―
100%
927
22,320
20
3,366
12
1,240
36
2,200
61
3,760
141
243
16
9
225
320
625
600
10
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
12
9
9
9
12
12
9
11,120
267,840
240
40,386
138
14,880
432
26,400
732
45,120
1,692
2,916
192
83
2,025
2,880
7,500
7,200
86
$20.10
$45.12
$22.56
$29.89
$12.97
$69.94
$40.61
$124.08
$68.81
$212.06
$159.05
$30.46
$18.05
$7.78
$6.35
$8.46
$28.20
$33.84
$4.06
$1,045
$25,177
$23
$3,796
$13
$1,399
$41
$2,482
$69
$4,241
$159
$274
$18
$8
$190
$271
$705
$677
$8
2
1
40
100%
2
9
14
$0.68
$1
Yearly
kWh
14
7
1,500
20%
588
4
2,352
$15.79
$221
Window AC (9,000Btu/hr)
1
8
1,050
50%
84
4
336
$31.58
$32
Window AC (12,000 Btu/hr)
1
8
1,400
50%
112
4
448
$42.11
$42
Cold Drink Vending Machine
4
24
800
50%
1,167
12
14,008
$329.20
$1,317
Unrefrigerated Snack Machine
3
24
80
100%
175
12
2,101
$65.84
$198
Water Cooler
1
24
―
―
9
12
108
$10.15
$10
Water Cooler (Energy Star)
1
24
―
―
5
12
60
$5.64
$6
TOTAL
949
38,272
451,290
$42,421
Table B- 6 Plug Load Model
Page 8 of 16
May 15, 2010
Total
IT
Equip
Cost
$25,177
$23
$3,796
$13
$1,399
$41
$2,482
$69
$4,241
$159
$274
$18
$37,691
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Average Electricity Cost =
Equipment
Coffee Maker
Fan
Desk Lamp
Microwave
Tabletop Fridge (<2.5 cu.ft.)
Small Fridge (2.5-6.4 cu.ft.)
Space Heater
Window AC (9,000Btu/hr)
Window AC (12,000 Btu/hr)
Cold Drink Vending Machine
Unrefrigerated Snack Machine
Water Cooler
Water Cooler (Energy Star)
Other
TOTAL
per kWh
$ 0.094
Qty In
Use*
Typ Use,
Hours/Day**
52
1
30
32
25
20
14
1
1
4
3
1
1
3
4
5
0.5
24
24
7
8
8
24
24
24
24
Average
Running
Wattage
Cycle
Time***
Monthly
kWh
33%
100%
100%
100%
―
―
20%
50%
50%
50%
100%
―
―
927
9
225
320
625
600
588
84
112
1,167
175
9
5
-
900
115
75
1,000
―
―
1,500
1,050
1,400
800
80
―
―
185
4,846
Months/Year
12
9
9
9
12
12
4
4
4
12
12
12
12
Yearly
kWh
11,120
83
2,025
2,880
7,500
7,200
2,352
336
448
14,008
2,101
108
60
50,221
Annual
Cost
Each
$20.10
$7.78
$6.35
$8.46
$28.20
$33.84
$15.79
$31.58
$42.11
$329.20
$65.84
$10.15
$5.64
Total
Annual
Cost
$1,045
$8
$190
$271
$705
$677
$221
$32
$42
$1,317
$198
$10
$6
$4,721
Table B- 7 Plug Load Behavioral Energy Savings
Page 9 of 16
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Plug Load Efficiency Measures
Behavioral
Behavioral change to remove refrigerators, coffee makes, microwaves, space heaters, window air
conditioning units and water cooler will have an impact on energy consumption at FLCC. Table
B- 7 identifies a potential 50,221 kWh annually to the FLCC energy bill is attributed to these plug
loads. A campus wide behavioral change to remove these loads from the campus would result in
an annual cost savings of $4,721 with no capital investment, resulting in an immediate payback
and a potential cumulative savings of 502,210 kWh and $47,210 over 10 years.
IT Equipment
During the data collection phase of this assessment it was identified through the campus
inventory that there were a total of 558 desktop systems and servers, 34 laptops, 187 printers and
nine scanners in the main academic building at FLCC. In addition, the machine room in building
B-392 contained 3 Apple Xserve, 1 IBM P5, IBM x235, 2 IBM 306, 4 IBM x335, 1 IBM x336, 5
IBM x345, 13 IBM x346, 5 IBM x3550, 20 IBM x3650, 3 IBM x 3650 with external disks, 3
EMC AX4 SAN, 1 ECM Clarion SAN and 1 left hand PS 4500 SAN. For the purpose of this
analysis we have focused energy consumption from the 558 desktop systems and 34 laptops
computer equipment from the main academic building.
Looking at these computer systems, multiple factors affect energy consumption. First and
foremost is the energy consumption and energy star certification of these systems. Figure B-2
illustrates
industrial
accepted
values
for
computer
and
monitory
energy
use.
Table B- 8 Energy Star Computer and Monitor Energy Consumption Data
A second factor would be the hours of operation for the computers at the campus. Based on
internet usage at the campus observed during the site assessment, primary hours of operation are
between 7:00 AM and 10:00 PM or 15 hours per day.
Page 10 of 16
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Table B- 9 Internet Usage at FLCC
A third factor for consideration is the implementation and continued operation of computer and
monitor power management features. Table B- 10 illustrates the power management features
available to most computer systems. EPA recommendations for computer settings stated in Table
B- 10 are to enter stand-by or hibernate mode after 15-60 minutes and monitors to enter sleep
mode after 5-20 minutes of inactivity.
Table B- 10 Energy Star Power Management Options
Page 11 of 16
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Table B- 11 Energy Star Potential Energy Savings
The energy savings potential from the implementation and continued operation of computer and
monitor power management features and the replacement of computers and monitors with Energy
Star compliant systems is presented in Table B- 11. This measure represents a savings $68,517
over 3 years with an annual savings of 262,666 kWh and $22,839. It is estimated that the
implementation of this measure will cost $410,300 resulting in a simple payback of 18 years.
Other Plug Loads
This section will focus on “other plug loads” that were observed during the site assessment, that
consists of specialty equipment or areas with equipment and systems that are unique to the
particular area and the ability to quantify energy use without sub-metering, which is outside the
scope of this study, is difficult. For these areas this assessment identifies the specialty equipment
and systems, but does not quantify energy use for this equipment. It is recommended to turn off
this equipment (as applicable) during off hours and that FLCC move forward with initiatives to
purchase energy star rated equipment as existing equipment reaches the end of useful life and to
provide single circuit control for areas such as the exercise room where individual control invites
an opportunity to leave equipment on during off hours.
Cafeteria / Kitchen
Of these areas the cafeteria is an area that based on hours of preparation, operation and equipment
would consume a significant amount of energy. This area consists of rooms C-207, C-210, and C212. These areas have equipment consisting of:
•
•
•
•
•
•
1 – 3 door beverage refrigerator
2 – 2 door beverage refrigerator
3 – 1 door beverage refrigerator
1 – Pretzel heater
1 – Fountain soda machine
1 – Ice cream freezer
Page 12 of 16
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
1 – Ice machine
1 – 3 door commercial refrigerator
1 – 2 door commercial refrigerator
1 – 1 door commercial refrigerator
1 – 1 door commercial freezer
1 – 2 door commercial freezer
2 – 3 door commercial freezer
1 – Chest freezer
2 – Commercial toasters
2 – Electric deep fryers
1 – electric pizza oven
2 – Electric ovens
2 – Cash registers
1 – Mixer
1 – Slicer
1 – Grinder
1 – Commercial dishwasher
Table B- 12 Cafeteria Beverage Refrigerator
Table B- 13 Electric Fryers and Grill
Page 13 of 16
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Table B- 14 Electric Ovens
FLTV Editing
The FLTV Editing and Master Control areas in A-118 and A-119 contain a substantial amount of
digital editing and broadcasting equipment. Figures B-8 and B-9 show the equipment identified.
Table B- 15 FLTV Editing
Table B- 16 FLTV Editing
Page 14 of 16
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Men’s Training Room
The Training room adjacent to the men’s locker room D-323 contains a substantial amount of
training / conditioning equipment including hot and cold baths, two washers and dryers, ice
machine, and various other equipment. Figures B-10 and B-11 show the equipment identified.
Table B- 17 Men’s Training Room
Table B- 18 Men’s Training Room
Health Club / Exercise Room
The Health Club / Exercise room adjacent to the Gymnasium contains a substantial amount of
training / conditioning equipment including treadmill, stair master and other equipment. Figure B12 shows the equipment identified.
Page 15 of 16
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX B. PLUG LOAD ASSESSMENT
Table B- 19 Health Club / Exercise Room
C:\PROJECTS\FLCC CAP\report\Final\Appendix B - FLCC P L Assess 051210PS.doc
Page 16 of 16
May 15, 2010
Appendix C1. LEED Policy for New Construction: Excerpt from New York State Executive Order 111
O'Brien & Gere
Page 1 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C2. High and medium potential behavioral changes
Actions with high potential:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Edit, spell and grammar check on screen to reduce printing (Waste Production)
Take only what you can eat in the dining hall or cafeteria and reduce your food waste
(Recycling / Food Services)
Recycle all recyclable materials (Recycling / Food Services)
Refrain from using push-button automated door-opening mechanisms if not needed (Energy
Conservation)
Choose reusable or refillable products instead of disposables; buy durable goods (Waste
Production)
Opt for travel mugs and reusable water bottles (Recycling / Food Services)
Whenever possible, combine activities, meetings and errands into one trip; use conference
calls or schedule meetings back to back (Transportation / Parking)
Accept a broader range of indoor temperatures (Energy Conservation)
When possible, take the stairs instead of the elevator (Energy Conservation)
Use low-flow showerheads and faucets (Water Conservation)
Wash your clothes in warm or cold water; run at a full load (Water Conservation)
File information electronically (Waste Production)
Send documents and invitations electronically (Waste Production)
Buy recycled or recycled-content products, both pre- and post-consumer (Recycling / Food
Services)
Consider options like telecommuting or distance learning (Transportation / Parking)
Dine in, walk to a restaurant, or pack a lunch to avoid unnecessary driving during the day
(Transportation / Parking)
Report all toilet and faucet leaks right away (Water Conservation)
Remove yourself from junk mail and catalog lists (Waste Production)
Turn off lights when you leave a room for more than five minutes; use only as much light as
you need (Energy Conservation)
Turn the water off while shaving or brushing teeth (Water Conservation)
When it's time to buy a new car, choose one that offers good gas mileage and/or choose a
hybrid / alternative fuel vehicle (Transportation / Parking)
Other high-potential conservation opportunities include: powering down computers during periods of
non-use or setting them to “sleep” mode; taking the stairs instead of the elevator; and refraining from
using push-button automated door-opening mechanisms if not needed.
Actions with medium potential
• Purchase, minimally, 30% recycled paper (Waste Production)
• For your old electronics, donate used equipment to schools or other organizations to ensure
reuse and recycling (Recycling / Food Services)
• Keep your car well-tuned (Transportation / Parking)
• Power down computers during periods of non-use, or set them to “sleep” mode, instead of
using screen-savers (Energy Conservation)
• Purchase energy efficient electronics and appliances, including Energy Star products and
energy-efficient fluorescent light bulbs (Energy Conservation)
• Turn off your electronics devices (e.g., television, cell phones and other equipment) when
you are not using them (Energy Conservation)
O'Brien & Gere
Page 2 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C3. Excerpt of HVAC recommendations from NYSERDA (2008) FLCC Energy Efficiency Study.
O'Brien & Gere
Page 3 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C3. Excerpt of HVAC recommendations from NYSERDA (2008) FLCC Energy Efficiency Study.
O'Brien & Gere
Page 4 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C4. Retrocomissioning: Overview of Phases
Typically, the RCx process is made up of the following phases.
•
Investigation Phase
1. Perform overall site assessment.
2. Obtain or develop and review missing documentation.
3. Develop a “Master Deficiencies List”.
4. Identify maintenance activities.
5. Coordinate testing of existing equipment. This will require the assistance of a Testing and
Balancing contractor and a controls contractor. The controls contractor would be the
representative that has supplied and installed the controls for the facility.
6. Recommend upgrades and improvements as part of the RCx effort.
The Investigative Phase is a field effort that includes baseline testing on the existing equipment being
commissioned.
•
Planning Phase
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Develop RCx objectives.
Develop RCx plan.
Develop RCx schedule.
Assemble and review facility documentation and historical utility data.
Develop a maintenance plan for all equipment being commissioned.
Develop RCx cost estimate.
Develop pre-functional checklists (PFC’s).
Develop functional performance tests (FPT’s).
Develop start-up plans.
Develop a contractor scope.
Assist the Owner in selecting a contractor to perform the necessary repairs and upgrades
(Note: The contractor(s) are hired and paid by the Owner).
The Planning Phase develops how the items and issues found in the Investigative Phase will be
implemented.
•
Implementation Phase
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
Manage and coordinate repairs and maintenance the contractor will perform.
Manage and coordinate PFC’s.
Manage and coordinate FPT’s and start-up.
Conduct and document Testing and Balancing.
Document final performance and parameters.
Develop and submit draft report.
Develop and submit a final RCx report.
Project Close-Out.
The Implementation Phase is obviously a field effort to conduct and document testing, etc. Completed
forms and documents are cataloged in a comprehensive systems manual.
O'Brien & Gere
Page 5 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C5: Heat Pumps Energy/GHG Estimation
Room
B117HP
B138HP
B148HP
B156HP
B305HP
B308HP
B310HP
B333HP1
B333HP2
C312HP
C317HP
C322HP
SF
Room Description
340
748
418
325
570
550
585
830
660
560
455
565
equip room
offices area
print shop
security suite
practice rooms
practice rooms
keyboard lab
lab
lab
classroom
classroom
computer classroom
Capacity
1 ton
2 ton
3 ton
1 1/2 ton
2 ton
2 ton
3 ton
2 1/2ton
2 1/2ton
2ton
2ton
2ton
Electrical Requirements
208-230/1p 5.6amps
208-230/1p 9.3amps
208-230/1p 15.3amps
208-230/1p 11.3amps
208-230/1p 13amps
208-230/1p 13amps
208-230/1p 13.5amps
208-230/3p 11.9amps
208-230/3p 11.9amps
460/3p 4.4amps
460/3p 4.4amps
460/3p 4.4amps
Base Case - Natural Gas
Nominal
Annual
Annual GHG Cost
power rating
Usage
Emissions
(Total
(kW)
(MMBtu) (MTCO2E)
only)
Thermostat
standard t'stat
DDC
programmable t'stat
programmable
DDC
DDC
DDC
programmable
programmable
programmable
DDC
DDC
1.29
2.14
3.52
2.60
2.99
2.99
3.11
2.74
2.74
2.02
2.02
2.02
$
Usage estimates
Days
8760
-2496
-2064
-1575
2625
3381
5615
9237
6822
7849
7849
8151
7185
7185
5313
5313
5313
79212
Annual GHG
Emissions
(MTCO2E)
Cost
(@$0.094/
kWh)
1.1
1.8
3.0
2.2
2.6
2.6
2.7
2.4
2.4
1.7
1.7
1.7
26.0 $
318
528
868
641
738
738
766
675
675
499
499
499
7,446
33.0 Annual GHG Emissions Reduction (MTCO2E)
5,435 Increase in utility expenditure
Total Hours
Weekends
Breaks
Evenings
Net Hours
GHG emission factors (EPA, 2007) - eGRID v1.1
NYUP
CO2
CH4
lb/MWh
lb/GWh
720.8
GWP
1
Total (MTCO2e/kWh)
0.00032878
O'Brien & Gere
3.0
6.7
3.7
2.9
5.1
4.9
5.2
7.4
5.9
5.0
4.1
5.0
59.0 $ 2,011
Annual
Usage
(kWh)
Hours
365
104
86
175
Btu/SF (2008-09)
51.2
112.6
62.9
48.9
85.8
82.8
88.1
125.0
99.4
84.3
68.5
85.1
994.6
Projected - Air-Source Heat Pump
N2O
lb/GWh
24.82
23
11.19
310
150562 from FLCC Annual Energy Report per Executive Order 111
Page 6 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C5: Heat Pumps Energy/GHG Estimation
NYSEG natural gas pricing structure from inspection of NYSEG utility bills from 10/2008 - 09/2009
Up to 500 therms
$
199.30
Delivery charge (per
therm, >500 therms)
$
0.1667
R&D charge (per therm,
total)
$
0.0014
Transition surcharge delivery (per therm,
total therms)
$
0.0224
O'Brien & Gere
Page 7 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C6: Energy and Cost Savings of Interior Lighting Retrofit.
Exist
Annual
Energy
(kWh)
Retrofit
Annual Energy
(Cost $)
Annual
Energy
(Cost $)
1st Floor
131,112
Retrofit
Annual
Energy
(kWh)
109,734
21,378
$12,324.53
2nd Floor
394,476
252,777
141,699
$37,080.74
Savings Annual
Energy (Cost $)
$2,009.53
$10,315.00
$13,319.70
$23,761.04
3rd Floor
362,403
226,824
135,579
$34,065.88
$21,321.46
$12,744.42
4th Floor
194,697
135,027
59,670
$18,301.52
$12,692.54
$5,608.98
Total
1,082,688
724,362
358,326
$101,772.67
$68,090.03
$33,682.64
O'Brien & Gere
Savings
Annual
Energy
(kWh)
Exist
Page 8 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C7: Energy and Cost Savings of Exterior Lighting Retrofit.
Luminaire
MH
LED (High Power)
LED (Low Power)
Average
Illuminance
(Footcandles)
1.8
1.9
0.9
Minimum
Illuminance
(Footcandles)
0.5
0.6
0.3
Coefficient of
Variation
0.53
0.33
0.32
Average to
Minimum
Uniformity
3.6 : 1
3.2 : 1
2.9 : 1
Average Power
(Watts)
346
149
52
Based on the information provided in Error! Reference source not found. the power
consumption of LED fixtures operating at high power can result in a 56.9% reduction in
energy consumption.
The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) recommends
maintained illuminance values for parking lots of 0.2 footcandles (FC) for typical in use
conditions and 0.5 FC for enhanced security. However IESNA also states that “during
periods of non-use, the illuminance of certain parking facilities may be turned off or
reduced to conserve energy.”
To further reduce the energy consumption of parking lot lights, a bi-level lighting system
utilizing motion sensors to detect periods of no motion may be desirable. This system
would implement a predetermined time delay feature to reduce the light output from high
power to low power further reducing the energy consumption from parking lot lights.
To calculate the savings potential of the retrofit the energy consumption for exterior
lighting, the estimated energy use, in a range between 76,650 kWh / year and 102,200 kWh /
year, is multiplied by 56.9%, resulting in energy reduction in a range between 43,614 kWh/year
and 58,152 kWh/year. This reduction would result in an annual savings of between $4,099.71 and
$5,466.28. Additional savings would be realized if a bi-level system is implemented.
O'Brien & Gere
Page 9 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C8: IT - Energy and Cost Savings from Server Virtualization
From Campbell (2009). Ohio University Green IT.
From Table 3,
225 Average power draw per physical server (W)
Average Power User Efficiency (PuE) multiple per
2.4 physical server, including prorated air conditioning and
other physical infrastructure
540 Datacenter power draw per physical server (W)
60
20%
75
95%
3.75
56.25
30380
266,124
87
$ 25,016
Current total servers (physical only)
Current fraction of servers virtualized
Total servers (physical + virtual)
Target fraction of servers virtualized
Target total servers (physical only)
Total number of physical servers eliminated
GHG emission factors (EPA, 2007) - eGRID v1.1
NYUP
CO2
CH4
N2O
lb/MWh lb/GWh lb/GWh
720.8
24.82
11.19
GWP
1
23
310
Total
0.000329
(MTCO2e/kWh)
Total datacenter power draw for physical servers eliminated (W)
Reduction in annual energy consumption (kWh)
Annual GHG emissions reduction (MTCO2E)
Annual utility bill savings (@$0.094/kWh)
$ 500,000 Cost of upgrade
20.0 Simple payback (yr)
O'Brien & Gere
Page 10 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C8: IT - Energy and Cost Savings from Server Virtualization
IT - Thin Client (Desktop Virtualization)
From Campbell (2009). Ohio University Green IT.
Based on Table 4 above,
932 Annual energy consumption per PC (kWh)
171 Annual energy consumption per thin client (kWh)
6585 Annual energy consumption per VDI server (kWh)
8 Number of users
7456 Total annual energy consumption (all PCs; kWh)
7953 Total annual energy consumption (thin clients + servers; kWh)
$
O'Brien & Gere
GHG emission factors (EPA, 2007) - eGRID v1.1
NYUP
CO2
CH4
N2O
lb/MWh lb/GWh lb/GWh
720.8
24.82
11.19
GWP
1
23
310
Total
0.000329
(MTCO2e/kWh)
-497 Reduction in annual energy consumption (kWh)
-0.2 Annual GHG emissions reduction (MTCO2E)
(47) Annual utility bill savings (@$0.094/kWh)
Page 11 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C8: IT - Energy and Cost Savings from Server Virtualization
Note: The thin client model provides greater cost savings than the PC model as the number of users increases.
O'Brien & Gere
Page 12 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C9: Energy and Cost Savings from IT Energy Star Power Management
ENERGY STAR Computer Power Management Savings Calculator
Savings Estimate
Energy Saved
Annually (kWh)
Dollars Saved Annually
3-Year Totals
Equivalent to:
$ Savings
Savings from ENERGY STAR
qualified monitors vs. standard
monitors:
Savings from ENERGY STAR
qualified notebooks vs. standard
notebooks:
Savings from ENERGY STAR
qualified desktops vs. standard
desktops:
Pollution Prevented:
CO2 (in tons)
Acres of trees
planted
Number of cars
removed
-
$0.00
$0.00
-
-
-
112.7
$10.60
$29.41
0.3
0.05
0.04
37,971.9
$3,569.36
$9,905.29
87.4
18.03
14.53
38,084.6
$3,579.95
$9,934.70
87.7
18.08
14.57
267,833.7
$25,176.37
$69,866.72
616.7
127.15
102.47
2,244.7
$211.00
$585.54
5.2
1.07
0.86
270,078.4
$25,387.37
$70,452.26
621.9
128.22
103.32
281,303.6
$26,442.54
$73,380.45
647.7
133.55
107.62
2,115.7
$198.88
$551.91
4.9
1.00
0.81
283,419.3
$26,641.42
$73,932.36
652.6
134.55
108.43
Total savings from monitor and
computer sleep settings:
553,497.7
$52,028.78
$144,384.61
1,274.4
262.77
211.75
Total Savings:
591,582.3
$55,608.7
$154,319.3
1,362.1
280.85
226.32
Total savings from ENERGY STAR
qualified monitors & computers:
Savings from monitors going into
sleep mode:
Savings from notebook displays going
into sleep mode:
Total savings from monitor sleep
mode:
Savings from desktops going into
system standby or hibernate mode:
Savings from notebooks going into
system standby or hibernate mode:
Total savings from system standby
and hibernate mode:
O'Brien & Gere
Page 13 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C9: Energy and Cost Savings from IT Energy Star Power Management
ENERGY STAR Computer Power Management Savings Calculator
GHG emission factors (EPA, 2007) - eGRID v1.1
NYUP
CO2
CH4
lb/MWh
lb/GWh
720.8
GWP
1
Total
0.00032878
(MTCO2e/kWh)
$
553,498 Reduction in annual energy consumption (kWh)
182 Annual GHG emissions reduction (MTCO2E)
52,029 Annual utility bill savings (@$0.094/kWh)
$
$
533
30%
373
1,100
410,300
N2O
lb/GWh
24.82
23
11.19
310
Total computers (desktop + portable) and monitors under "Energy Star" purview
Percentage of computers that are already Energy Star-capable
Total new Energy Star computer systems to be purchased
Average cost per new system
Total cost of upgrade
7.9 Simple payback (yr)
O'Brien & Gere
Page 14 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C10: Energy and Cost Savings from use of Network Printers
187
10%
5%
19
9
Total number of printers
Fraction of personal printers
Fraction of personal copiers
Total personal printers
Total personal copiers
2.56 Weekly printer energy consumption (kWh; see Energy Star document with filters)
1.44 Weekly copier energy consumption (kWh; see Energy Star document with filters)
2533 Total annual energy savings due to printer reduction (kWh)
674 Total annual energy savings due to copier reduction (kWh)
GHG emission factors (EPA, 2007) - eGRID v1.1
NYUP
CO2
CH4
N2O
lb/MWh lb/GWh lb/GWh
720.8
24.82
11.19
GWP
1
23
310
Total
(MTCO2e/ 0.000329
kWh)
$
3,207 Reduction in annual energy consumption (kWh)
1.1 Annual GHG emissions reduction (MTCO2E)
301 Annual utility bill savings (@$0.094/kWh)
O'Brien & Gere
Page 15 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C11: Energy Savings from IT Behavior Change
Informational campaign on reducing energy use for computing
1411
0.7
988
80%
20%
Total 2010 FTEs
Computers per FTE
Total computers (used by students, not owned or operated by FLCC)
Fraction laptop/tablet
Fraction desktop
GHG emission factors (EPA, 2007) - eGRID v1.1
NYUP
CO2
CH4
N2O
lb/MWh lb/GWh lb/GWh
720.8
24.82
11.19
GWP
1
23
310
Total
(MTCO2e/ 0.000329
kWh)
40 TEC for Category A laptop computer (kWh/yr)
175 TEC for Category B desktop computer (kWh/yr)
31616 Laptop power use (kWh)
34580 Desktop power use (kWh)
10% Fraction energy reduced due to informational campaign
6,620 Reduction in annual energy consumption (kWh)
2.2 Annual GHG emissions reduction (MTCO2E)
$ 622 Annual utility bill savings (@$0.094/kWh)
O'Brien & Gere
Page 16 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C12: GHG Reductions from Transportation Policy
Transportation Options Survey & Outreach
Bi-Annual Transportation Survey
Comprehensive Web Portal
Transportation Policy Implementation
Priority Parking and Rates for Low-Emission Vehicles
No-Idling Policy
From FLCC Commuting Estimate (GHG Inventory)
Fiscal Year
Student
Mileagea
Faculty/Staff
Mileageb
Total Mileage
FTEs
Employees
Vehicle Type
CO2 Emission
Factor
CO2 Emission
Factor Units
CO2
Emissions
(kg)
Commuting
CO2 (metric
tons)
2008-2009
10100004.8
2706600
12806604.8
1947
586
medium
gasoline auto
0.392
kg CO2/ mile
5020189
5020
CO2
Emissions
(kg)
Commuting
CO2 (metric
tons)
Difference
4518170.173
4518.170173
Estimated
increase in
CO2 Emission CO2 Emission
mpg/
Factor
Factor Units
reduction in
emission
factor
10%
O'Brien & Gere
0.3528
kg CO2/ mile
502 Average Annual GHG Reduction (MTCO2E)
Page 17 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C13: GHG reduction from Composting
Garbage Assessment
Trash (lb)
Recycling (lb)
Compost (lb)
Total (lb)
Approximation of one day's worth of garbage at FLCC
443.5
55%
67%
141
17%
223.25
28%
666.75
33%
807.75
Annual Trash generation
(US tons/yr)
Annual Compost (US
Tons/yr)
Daily Compost (lb/day)
GHG Emissions reduced
(MTCO2E/yr)
334.4 obtained from FLCC's GHG inventory as input into the Clean Air - Cool Planet Calculator
112.0 (Annual Compost) = (Annual Trash Generation)*[(Compost)/(Compost + Trash) from Garbage Assessment]
223.3
-8.1
From http://www.compostingtechnology.com/invesselsystems/earthtub/
Average Earth Tub biomass
processing capacity
(lb/day)
Number of Earth Tubs
required
Incremental Power
Consumption (kWh/yr)
Incremental GHG
emissions (MTCO2E/yr)
From http://epa.gov/climatechange/wycd/waste/downloads/fullreport.pdf
Average (arithmetic mean) of Earth Tub
processing capacity values listed on the
95 CompostingTechnology.com website
Daily Compost (lb/day) divided by average Earth
3 Tub biomass processing capacity
3240
1.1
7.1 Annual GHG Emissions Reduction (MTCO2E)
Cost Analysis
Description
Site Preparation/
Modifications
Earth Tub Cost
Shipping/ Handling
Equipment Installation
Waste Collection
Containers
Misc. Admin. Labor
Total Estimate
Supplier:
Green Mountain
Technologies
Subtotal
$
$
$
$
28,800
36,000
3,000
1,200
$
$
525
3,750
$
73,275
Discount
Factor
Discount factor accounts for
potential bulk discounts that may be
20%
0%
0%
20%
0%
50% Site prep cost from SUNY Morrisville
www.compostingtechnology.com
Top of Form
Number of Earth Tubs:
1
GHG emission factors (EPA, 2007) - eGRID v1.1
Base Price:
$8,975
NYUP
CO2
CH4
N2O
lb/MWh lb/GWh lb/GWh
720.8
24.82
11.19
1
23
310
GWP
Total
(MTCO2e/ 0.000329
kWh)
O'Brien & Gere
Page 18 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C13: GHG reduction from Composting
Earth Tub Supplier:
Green Mountain Technologies
Base Price:
O'Brien & Gere
www.compostingtechnology.com
$8,975
Page 19 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C14: Waste Oil to Biodiesel Conversion Systems
Biodiesel Processing Kit & Safety Supplies
Price
Unit
Quantity
Cost
BioPro 180 - biodiesel processor
(Ever Green Renewable Energy Development - Seth Friedman)
$
8,395.00 ea
1
$
8,395.00
Dayton Transfer Pump (Grainger Item # 1V393)
$
500.00 ea
1
$
500.00
Transfer hoses & connectors
Filters?
Transfer pump (hand operated) for methanol drum
$
250.00
$
$
250.00 One of the connectors will need to fit the dining halls' fryer oil storage tanks
(we had one of these in the lab already)
Drum wrench non- sparking
Secondary containment (6 sections)
Ramp
Spill control pallets
$
$
$
$
PPE (Goggles, gloves, face shields)
$
250.00
Eye wash station (3-options)
Portable
Water supplied
$
$
400.00
200.00
Air monitor for LEL and combustibles
$
500.00
30 Gallon spill kit
Drum truck
Flammable storage cabinet
Acid/Base Storage cabinet
Safety cans
Bonding/grounding straps
Oil waste disposal cans
Drums (quote, attached sheet)
Metal 55gallon
Polyethylene 55 gallon
Funnels
Plastic
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
330.00
250.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
75.00 ea
100.00
110.00
1
1
1
1
2
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
80.00 ea
58.00 ea
4
4
$
$
320.00 (two open top and two closed)
232.00
$
35.00 ea
4
$
140.00
Transfer/Storage Tank (Grainger Item # 1RD41 )
$
550.00
$
550.00
Misc. Supplies (water hoses/filters, canisters for NaOH,etc)
Graduated Cylinders (Fisher-Scientific #08-557-1E )
Balance/Scale
$
$
$
150.00
34.97 ea
100.00 ea
$
2
$
1
$
Grand Total $
150.00
69.94
100.00
16,251.94
1
75.00 ea
1,000.00 per 6
180.00 ea
200.00
1
1
1
1
Max.
$
$
$
$
75.00
1,000.00
180.00
200.00
$
250.00 (lots of nitrile disposable gloves, and lots of absorbent spill pads)
$
400.00
$
500.00 (we did not need this for our location/setup)
330.00
250.00
1,000.00
1,000.00
150.00
100.00
110.00
Oil storage, biodiesel storage cost?
O'Brien & Gere
Page 20 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C14: Waste Oil to Biodiesel Conversion Systems
Capacity
With our setup, we could process up to 2 batches per week (100 gal. of biodiesel)
We recently added a separate system for dewatering the oil (centrifuge), which will allow us to run 3 batches per week (150 gal.)
The centrifuge setup cost: ~$1200
$
1,200.00
Operating Expenses
Chemicals
NaOH
H2SO4
MeOH
Filters
gal. of feedstock or product
65 start
5 filtered "junk" oil
60 "filtered" oil into processor
10 wet/junk oil drained off the bottom of processor
50 oil run through transesterification process
10 methanol
190 ml
sulfuric acid
1520 g
NaOH
12 glycerine (+methanol)
45 rinse water
45-50
biodiesel
LAB SAFETY QUOTE
********************************************************************
Thank you for giving us the opportunity to quote on the products listed below. Prices are based on all products and quantities quoted and
may change if lesser quantities or alternate products are ordered. Please note that if LSS product numbers were not
When placing an order, please reference our Quote Number QC00217461.
QUOTE DETAILS
Product ID
Product Description
Lead Unit Price Total Price
Time
------------------ -------------------- ----- -------- ----- ---------- -----------43911
IV GOG 500/600
EA
4
STOCK 10.07
40.28
ENCOMPASS CL FR
5532
IV GOG REPL CL ENFOG EA
LENS 500/
1
STOCK 3.61
3.61
5534
GOG REPL HEADBAND
500/600 SERI
PK
1
STOCK 12.73
12.73
14981
FCSHLD PINLOCK
TUFFMASTER PC B
EA
2
STOCK 14.16
28.32
14981-2
REPL FACE SHIELD
WINDOW
EA
1
STOCK 6.56
6.56
O'Brien & Gere
UOM
Qty
Page 21 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C14: Waste Oil to Biodiesel Conversion Systems
14982-1
REPL RATCHET
HEADGEAR
EA
1
STOCK 13.02
13.02
17893
REPL HEADGEAR W/
EXTENDER
EA
1
STOCK 17.10
17.10
35499
PVC GLV HUSTLER 12
IN L ROUGH
PR
2
STOCK 5.80
11.60
35500
PVC GLV HUSTLER 14
IN L ROUGH
PR
2
STOCK 6.18
12.36
2151
ACID CAB 2 DR 45 GAL EA
B STL 65X
1
STOCK 739.10
739.10
24860
B/G WIRE DUAL 2-5 FT EA
STL VINYL
2
STOCK 20.81
41.62
24859
B/G WIRE DUAL
INSULTD 2-5 FT
EA
2
STOCK 29.55
59.10
35312Y
SFTY CAN TYPE I GALV EA
STL 5 GAL
2
STOCK 30.12
60.24
11316
OILY WST CAN HAND
LIFT R 6 GAL
EA
2
STOCK 48.83
97.66
11344
DRM FUNL SLFCLS 6 IN EA
L TUBE
1
STOCK 180.50
180.50
35594
DRM FUNL 18 IN DIA
HDPE
EA
2
STOCK 31.73
63.46
35595
DRM FUNL W/ SCREEN
18 IN DIA
EA
2
STOCK 35.53
71.06
11334
DRM WRENCH NON SPRK
12 IN. L
EA
1
STOCK 39.62
39.62
35597
CNTNMNT ACC RAMP Y
EA
1
STOCK 155.80
155.80
26327
UNVRSL SRBNT RL 19
INX50 FT
EA
1
STOCK 52.73
52.73
O'Brien & Gere
Page 22 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C14: Waste Oil to Biodiesel Conversion Systems
2950
UNVRSL LS SRBNT
HAZORB
EA
1
STOCK 103.55
103.55
2149Y
FLAM DRM CAB 2 DR
1/55 GAL Y S
EA
1
6 Days
920.55
920.55
29972
CNTNMNT SPILLSKID 6
DRM HDPE
EA
1
8 Days
490.20
490.20
97878
CNTNMNT SPILLPAL
PLLT 2 DRM
EA
1
15 Days
140.60
140.60
Subtotal:
Freight:
Tax:
Total:
3361.37
558.75
0.00
3920.12
From: Steve Bressette [mailto:sbressette@bronsteincontainer.com]
Sent: Monday, January 28, 2008 3:19 PM
To: Fletcher, Robert
Subject: Drum Pricing
Hi Bob
Per your request, we are pleased to quote you on the following:
Reconditioned Steel Drum
55 Gallon
•
Closed Head
Reconditioned Open Head Steel Drum UN1A2/Y1.2/100 .......$34.50
Reconditioned Open Head Steel Drum Lined UN1A2/Y1.2/100....$36.50
UN 1A1/Y1.2/100………………$26.50 each
•
•
Reconditioned Poly Drum
55 Gallon
Closed Head
Color-Black, Blue or Natural (pending availability).................................$24.50 each.
If you should have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Thank you,
Steve
O'Brien & Gere
Page 23 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C14: Waste Oil to Biodiesel Conversion Systems
Steven M. Bressette
Operations Supervisor
Bronstein Container Co., Inc.
(315) 469-6191 x 101
UNIVERSITY BIOPRO™ QUESTIONAIRE
Please write your answers in red below, resave, and send back to matt@springboardbiodiesel.com
O'Brien & Gere
Page 24 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C14: Waste Oil to Biodiesel Conversion Systems
Please write your answers in red below, resave, and send back to matt@springboardbiodiesel.com
Thank you!
What is the name of your educational institution? Morrisville State College (State University of New
York)
Which BioPro™ does your institution own? 190
In what year did your institution purchase a BioPro™? 2008
Does your school use the BioPro™ as part of its curriculum? Yes!
If so, which Department operates the machine? Renewable Energy Training Center
Does that department have a website? If so, what is the URL? http://retc.morrisville.edu/
How many students have been introduced to the use of the machine? 16 actively involved (hands-on);
30+ introduced, with a growing interest across campus as people (students and faculty) learn about it
How many gallons of biodiesel would you say your institution has produced since owning the machine?
550 (with regular production beginning in August 2009—about one batch every 2 weeks)
What is your projected (approximate) annual output of your machine? 1000-1500
[maximum capacity is about 3 batches every week for spring and fall semesters: 30 weeks, so 90 batches
or 4500 gal.]
What is the source of your feedstock? Campus dining hall fryer oil, local restaurant
How is your biodiesel used/burned after it is made? Greenhouse heating, some vehicle use
In what equipment do you use the school-made biodiesel? Fuel-oil boiler, various vehicles
At what percentage (B5, B20, B100, etc)? B100
How do you store your biodiesel? Currently in 50 gal. drums; dedicated fuel tanks on order
Is your institution tracking the amount of Green House Gas Emissions it produces? Not to my knowledge
If so, have you calculated how many pounds of CO2, your BioPro™unit has kept out of the atmosphere?
Is your school a member of The American and University Presidents Climate Commitment? Yes.
LOGISTICS
How did your University finance the purchase? (ie, who’s budget or was there a grant?) grant funded
O'Brien & Gere
Page 25 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C15: Components of a Waste Minimization Plan
Phase I-gather baseline data through:
1. annual garbage assessment
2. annual quantity of paper purchased
3. annual estimation of GHG emissions from solid waste
Phase II-develop a 5-yr plan to:
1. reduce waste
a. increase recycling efforts
b. do cost/benefit analysis of composting
c. reduce packaging materials and use of disposables
2. improve waste management process
a. have someone who is clearly in charge of waste management
b. make sure every trash can has a recycling bin next to it
c. get more hallway trash cans
d. require haulers to weigh each pick-up and report
monthly
it on
basis
a
e. set targets for reductions each year (i.e. - a certain
percent per person on campus)
f. establish policies that discourage waste (i.e. - only
change garbage bags when soiled)
3. develop campus-wide educational programs
a. participate in RecycleMania
b. train incoming students on what can/can't be recycled
(orientation programs, classes, etc.)
c. get students involved in annual garbage assessment
d. at campus events, have trash/recycling stations with
student workers to help sort/educate
e. have competitions among students, clubs, or other groups
f. have peer-to-peer trainings (Orientation Assistants, Resident Assistants, student members of the Sustainability
Committee, Sustainability Liaisons for academic departments)
g. have clearly labeled signs and posters throughout the
school
4. monitor progress
a. continue to track data for the 3 points listed in Phase I
b. advertise these targets and give periodic updates
school to
sothe
they can modify behaviors
5. adapt to feedback
a. depending on progress, targets may have to be adjusted
b. determine what efforts are successful and why
c. eliminate programs that aren't successful
d. look for new opportunities for improvement (reducing barriers, more effective educational efforts, etc.)
O'Brien & Gere
Page 26 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C16: Carbon sequestration from conservation of campus green space
Total Acreage
Covered Acres
Average Distribution for Total
Source: Rowntree Carbon Storage
and Nowak, 1991. (T C/acre)
Average Distribution for Annual
Source: Rowntree Carbon Sequestration
and Nowak, 1991. (T C/acre)
Conversion Factor (C to CO2)
% Cover
Conversion Factor (Ton to Mton)
Storage
(total quantity; MTCO2)
Sequestration
(annual increase in storage;
MTCO2/yr)
250
149
43.03
0.335
3.67
59.7%
0.90718474
21,358
166
Approach
The Google Earth software program was used to carry out a visual inspection of the FLCC campus, whose approximate
boundaries are circumscribed by the thick green outline and a lighter blue outline in the center-left of the chart. Darker
portions of the chart within campus limits were identified as forested areas. Since the majority of these forested areas were
in the top left of the chart, ancillary areas were identified, "cut" from their locations, and "pasted" in a non-overlapping
manner in the top left. (This is the reason for the presence of white patches in the chart). A rectangle covering the net
forested area was subsequently drawn; based on the scale in the bottom left of the chart, we estimate the size of this
rectangle to be 2500 ft x 2600 ft, or about 149 acres, as listed in cell C4 above.
O'Brien & Gere
Page 27 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C17: REC suppliers
Community Energy (CEI) has RECs available for sale in an amount to cover the Scope 2 emissions
associated with purchase of electricity. The RECs would be from Green-e certified wind that is
sourced from anywhere in the U.S. A 3-year contract entered into effective February 2010 would be
priced as follows:
$1.43 per MWh in the 1st year
$1.67 per MWh in the 2nd year
$2.11 per MWh in the 3rd year
New York Power Authority Contact:
Peter N. Giasemis, PE
(917) 685 1847
Peter.Giasemis@nypa.gov
Utilized by CUNY to buy wind power RECs
O'Brien & Gere
Page 28 of 29
May 15, 2010
Appendix C18: Preferred Offset Providers Which Sell to Businesses
Type of Offset
Provider
Type of Offsets
BS= Bio-sequestration
EE= Energy Efficiency
GS= Geo-sequestration
MC= Methane Capture*
RE= Renewable Energy
TR= Transportation
Customers
U.S.
Project aggregator,
project developer
BS, EE, RE, MC
Business
NP
U.S.
Retailer
RE, EE, BS
Business,
individuals
Climate Trust
NP
U.S.
Retailer, project
developer
RE, EE, BS, MC
Business,
individuals
Community Energy
Inc
FP
U.S.
Retailer
RE
Business,
individuals
Conservation
International
NP
U.S.
Conservation charity,
offers offsets
BS
Business,
individuals
EcoSecurities
FP
International
Project developer,
project aggregator
RE, GS, MC, EE
Business and
government
NativeEnergy
FP
U.S.
Retailer
RE
Business,
individuals
Nature
Conservancy
NP
U.S.
Retailer
BS
Business,
government
Sterling Planet
FP
U.S.
Retailer
BS, EE, RE, MC
Business,
university,
individual
Terra Pass
FP
U.S.
Retailer, project
developer
RE, EE
Business,
individuals
Name and URL
of Company
Forprofit
or
nonprofit
HQ
Location
Blue Source
FP
Carbonfund.org
O'Brien & Gere
Page 29 of 29
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX D. PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET
PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET
Customers Name and Address: Finger Lakes Community College
3325 Marvin Sands Drive, Canandaigua, NY 14424
Customers Contact and Title: Jan Holloway, Director of Buildings and Grounds
Telephone #: 585-394-3500 x7615
STRATEGY OF ENERGY SAVINGS
Measure
Measure
Fuel Type
Energy
Energy
Energy
Annual
Estimated Costs
Simple
Description
Status
Saved
Saved in
Saved in
Saved in
Dollars
for
Payback
(See notes)
(See notes)
kWh
kW
mmBTUs
Saved
Implementation
Period
(Years)
LEED Policy for
R
New Construction
General Behavior
210,600
–
1,408
$32,000
–
–
354,550
–
497
$37,650
$40,000
1
872,300
–
3,290
$110,620
$220,900
2
709,090
–
993.3
$68,660
$43,830
<1
(79,212)
–
995
$(5,435)
–
–
NGas
R
Change
HVAC Energy
Elec;
Elec;
NGas
R
Conservation
Elec;
NGas
Measures
Retro-
R
commissioning
Heat Pumps
Elec;
NGas
R
NGas
(Elec
increased)
Interior Lighting
R
Elec
358,330
–
–
$33,680
$503,000
15
R
Elec
87,280
–
–
$8,200
$22,500
3
R
Elec
50,883
–
–
$4,783
$43,830
9
Retrofits
Interior Lighting
Controls –
Occupancy Sensors
Exterior Lighting
Upgrades
Page 1 of 2
May 15, 2010
APPENDIX D. PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET
Measure
Measure
Fuel Type
Energy
Energy
Energy
Annual
Estimated Costs
Simple
Description
Status
Saved
Saved in
Saved in
Saved in
Dollars
for
Payback
(See notes)
(See notes)
kWh
kW
mmBTUs
Saved
Implementation
Period
(Years)
IT – Server
R
Elec
266,124
–
–
$25,016
$500,000
20
R
Elec
262,666
–
–
$22,839
$410,300
18
R
Elec
3,207
–
–
$301
–
–
R
Elec
6,620
–
–
$622
–
–
R
Elec
50,221
–
–
4,721
–
–
R
Gasoline;
–
–
–
–
–
–
Virtualization
IT – Energy Star
Power Management
IT – Printers and
Copiers
IT – Behavior
Change
Plug Load
Reduction –
Behavior Change
Transportation
Policy
Oil2
Composting
R
–
–
–
–
–
$73,275
–
Waste Oil to
R
–
–
–
–
–
$17,452
–
R
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
I
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
R
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
R
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
3,152,659
–
7,183
$343,657
$1,875,087
5.5
Biodiesel
Waste Minimization
Plan
Carbon
Sequestration by
On-Campus Trees
Purchased
Renewable Energy
Certificates (RECs)
Purchased Carbon
Credits
TOTAL:
Notes:
Please fill in applicable boxes.
Measure Status: Implemented (I); Recommended (R); Further Study Recommended (RS).
Fuel Saved: Elec, NGas, Oil2, Oil4, Oil6, Coal, LPG. MMBtu = 1,000,000 Btu
Page 2 of 2
May 15, 2010