$$ Billion Dollar
Green
Challenge
UO Financial Stewardship
Small Group Project
Presentation
April 2013
Billion Dollar Green Challenge
 Overview
of the program
 Case Studies from participating institutions
 University of Oregon’s project
 Recommendations
Q&A
Program Overview
The Billion Dollar Green Challenge
Participation:
 39 Institutions: Colleges, universities and other
non-profits
 $68 million committed to date
 36 distinguished member advisory council
Program Overview
The Billion Dollar Green Challenge
Goals:
invest a combined total of one billion dollars in
self-managed revolving funds that finance
energy efficiency improvements
Program Overview
The Billion Dollar Green Challenge
Process:
Green revolving funds invest in energy
efficiency projects to reduce energy
consumption on campus and reinvest the
money saved in future projects.
Program Overview
The Billion Dollar Green Challenge
Proposed Benefits:
Reduction of carbon emissions and resource
consumption
Financial savings
Creating re-investment funding
Educational opportunity – research/teaching
Foster culture of sustainability and resource
efficiency
Additional membership benefits
Accounting
Loan vs. Accounting Model
 In 2011, Sustainable Endowments Institute
suggested two accounting categories
 For the 2012 survey, schools placed their
funds into one of those categories
Loan Model
The
project applicant agrees to borrow
from the fund
Funds are transferred to the project
proponent’s budget
Loan repayment typically managed
through budget transfers
Twenty-one institutions report they use the
loan model
Accounting Model





Funds are transferred to the project applicant
Repayment is handled through transfer of funds to
the GRF
• From centrally-managed budget where savings
were generated
• Example: from a utility budget
Handled by the central finance/budget office
Used where projects create operational savings in
budgets that are managed centrally
Thirty-nine funds use the accounting model
Estimating and Verifying
Project Performance
 Estimated
engineering data
• 10 schools use this method
 Individual building meters
• 7 schools use this method
 Combination meter/engineering data
• 38 schools use this method
Case Studies
 Lane
Community College - Accounting
Initial investment 2006, $122,000
o
o
o
Focused on conservation creating Energy
Carryover Fund
realized savings when current year electricity
and natural gas expenditures are less than
current year budget.
rebates and other incentives for energy-focused
projects deposited into the fund
Case Studies

Oregon State University – LOAN model
o
o
o
o
o
o
Initial investment 2010, $1,000,000
SERLF – student run, student funded*
Provides local source low interest financing to
accelerate sustainable energy projects on the
OSU campus.
provide student learning, demonstrate
environmental leadership and economic
benefit.
hands-on education for graduates studying
energy efficiency and renewable energy.
The minimum funding per project $5,000.
*OSU Student Sustainability Initiative (SSI) Fee Board
Case Studies

California Institute of Technology – Accounting Model





Initial Investment: 2008, $25,000
The Caltech Energy Conservation Investment Program (CECIP)
funded by Institute’s endowment, (via the Capital Revolving
Fund) then reimbursed from avoided utility costs
energy conservation projects must have a return on investment
greater than 15%, exhibit verifiable savings via metering and
must not be part of a planned capital project.
allocation has grown to roughly $8,000,000, which at its
projected peak will finance over $30,000,000 in energy
conservation measures.
project selection, detailed training, a rigorous system of checks
and balances and an emphasis on measurable results,
effectively embeds energy conservation into the organization.
*OSU Student Sustainability Initiative (SSI) Fee Board
Case Studies ROI from
participating institutions
Return on investment between 20 percent (Georgia IT,
UNC Chapel Hill) and 57 percent (Boston U).
George Washington U Green Campus Fund investment:
$141,000; upgrade the lighting (2010); $100,000/year
savings. Projected lifespan: 8 years, original
investment will generate ~$800,000 savings =
reinvestment
The Oregon Model for
Sustainable Development
 Net
Zero Increase in Campus Energy
Use from New Development
Increased
energy
consumption
from new
construction…
…energysaving
mitigation in
existing
buildings
…offset by…
The Oregon Model for
Sustainable Development
 Affect
+
on Campus Wide Energy Costs
Increased
utilities costs for
new construction
Included in
operating funds
budgeted for
new facilities
-
Reduced utilities
costs due to
mitigation in
existing building
Reduces spend
on utilities for
existing run rates
The Oregon Model for
Sustainable Development

Central Energy Fund (CEF) set up to pay for
energy-saving mitigation in existing buildings
 Funded by new
construction project
surcharge and Central
Administration
 Managed by Campus
Operations
The Oregon Model for
Sustainable Development

Balancing the Energy and Cash “Banks”
Campus Wide – How it’s supposed to work
Energy
New
Construction
10% of CEF is from
construction
projects/90% from
Central Admin
Central
Energy
Fund
Energy Saving
Mitigation
UO’s First Energy-Saving Mitigation
Project Under the Model
Lighting
project to replace T12 lamps with T8 lamps in
45 buildings
Anticipated
savings based on EWEB’s engineering
model of 1.41 megawatts per year
.10
per kilowatt savings = $141,000/year
The Oregon Model for
Sustainable Development
 Problems
with the application of UO’s
Model as a Green Revolving Fund
Energy
New
Construction
Central Admin funds
borrowed from
Central Power
Station Depreciation
Central
Energy
Fund
Energy Saving
Mitigation
Funding Recommendations
 Create
a true Revolving Fund seeded
with funds dedicated for that
purpose
Energy
New
Construction
Project Grants Central
Funds or Gifts Admin
Energy Saving
Mitigation
Fund Management
Recommendations

Identify cost savings

Utilize estimated savings established by experts,
consultants, or product information
o
o

Reduces the challenges caused by inconsistent
availability of infrastructure
Creates a cushion to protect against underperforming projects and rate fluctuations
Determine payback period and amount
Fund Management
Recommendations
 Repayment
o
Model
Department Projects - Use the Accounting
Model
Fund Management
Recommendations
 Repayment
o
Model
Auxiliary Projects - Use the Loan Model
Conclusion – Commit!
 Enhance
the Triple Bottom Line
Questions?
Thank you for your participation
in our presentation







Kassia Dellabough – Director, A&AA PODS
Suzanne Dodge – Accountant 2, Campus Operations
Terri Libert – Accountant 2 – Law School
Molly Lockhart – Property Control Coordinator, Business Affairs
R. Kevin Marbury – Director, Physical Education & Recreation
Lynne Romans – Public Relations Specialist - Biology
John Salmon – Associate General Counsel, General Counsel
For copies of the executive summary email tlibert@uoregon.edu
For program info see http://greenbillion.org