Environmental Council 2014 – 2015
Summary of Progress and Recommendations for FY16 and Beyond
June 9, 2015
Introduction
This is to follow up on our final Environmental Council (EC) meeting of the year. At that
meeting in May 2015 we discussed with Ron Liebowitz our findings and
recommendations which he asked us to share with him and incoming President Laurie
Patton. A summary of our key recommendations which are drawn from the attached
report and subsequent discussion by members of the EC are provided below. These
recommendations are a work in progress and the EC would very much welcome the
opportunity to meet with Laurie at our first EC meeting in September 2015 to discuss
the future agenda of the EC. Also attached is a summary of the work the EC did this past
year and its recommendations for going forward in specific areas the EC focused on over
the year.
Objectives for future Environmental Council and Environmental Affairs/Office of
Sustainability Integration work
The mission of the Environmental Council is to engage and support all members of the
College community in advancing leadership in sustainability and environmental
citizenship.
For 18 years, the Environmental Council has played an active role in shaping
Middlebury’s commitment to environmental and sustainability leadership. The EC is a
standing committee that recommends policy, undertakes assessment and projects,
educates the college community, and advises the President. It is composed of about 21
members half of whom are students and the other half faculty and staff. The EC often
works closely with the Environmental Affairs and the Office of Sustainability Integration
which has made a significant difference in the College’s capacity for leadership in
environmental stewardship and sustainability and hopes that through such a
collaborative effort we can achieve even greater results in the future.
Middlebury has a long history and has been an early leader in environmental
stewardship and sustainability and a well-earned reputation as a pioneer and innovator
in this regard. This has also contributed a great deal to the college’s high appeal to
prospective students and donors. Over the last ten years or so many other higher
education institutions have incorporated sustainability and environmental stewardship
into their policies and practices. While this is great progress for higher education as a
whole, it also means that Middlebury must innovate in this arena more creatively and
deeply.
Our efforts have been significant - especially at the institutional and administrative
levels in recent years (carbon neutrality, biomass and biomethane, Real Food, etc.). As
we conducted our outreach efforts this past semester sharing the results of the STARS
report (see more below) and asking students, staff and faculty for their feedback on
future priorities, one of the recurring comments we received was essentially that people
wanted more info and opportunity to play a role in this arena as individuals.
We believe it would be beneficial to place an additional emphasis on enhancing the
sustainability and environmental literacy of the college community (Including MIISM) as
a whole and offer the following recommendations for how to achieve that goal:
1. Formalize the College’s definition of sustainability and environmental
stewardship
2. Incorporate sustainability and environmental literacy goals into orientation and
training of staff, faculty and students and into the annual goal setting process
that takes place within the college’s departments and offices.
3. Develop means by which sustainability and environmental stewardship can be
effectively and voluntarily further integrated into all academic disciplines and
teaching at Middlebury. We would be happy to discuss specific means and
strategies for doing so at a future time.
4. Develop a comprehensive and strategic communication plan for informing and
engaging college community members in acting for sustainability and
environmental stewardship and ways to track and acknowledge their
contributions.
5. Establish a liaison from the EC to Faculty Council to report on the work of the EC
and Environmental Affairs and the Office of Sustainability Integration.
Recommendations based on EC 2014-15 Committee work
Please refer to following report covering the work and recommendations of four
subcommittees of the EC:
1. STARS (Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System) and Strategic
Planning;
2. Real Food Challenge
3. Campus Microgrid
4. Grants
Middlebury College Environmental Council
Findings and Recommendations for Academic Year 2015
May 26, 2015
About the Environmental Council ................................................................................3
2015 Academic Year Foci .............................................................................................4
Summary of Findings and Recommendations ..............................................................4
1. Outreach and Visioning – Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System
Committee.........................................................................................................................4
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 4
Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 5
2. Real Food Challenge Committee .....................................................................................6
Summary ................................................................................................................................. 6
Preliminary Recommendations – further research to be conducted over the summer ........ 7
3. Campus Microgrid for Climate Change Resiliency Committee ........................................ 10
Summary ............................................................................................................................... 10
Recommendations ................................................................................................................ 13
4. Grants .......................................................................................................................... 14
Appendix 3: Proposed product switches in order to achieve 30%, 40% and 50% real
food.......................................................................................................................... 17
Appendix 1: STARS Report summary handout………………………………………………………………13
Appendix 2: 2014-2015 Environmental Council Members…………………………………..……….13
Appendix 3: Proposed product switches………………………………………………………………………14
About the Environmental Council
The mission of the Environmental Council (EC) is to engage and support all members
of the College community in advancing leadership in sustainability and environmental
citizenship.
For 18 years, the Environmental Council has played an active role in shaping
Middlebury’s commitment to environmental and sustainability leadership. The EC is a
standing committee that recommends policy, undertakes assessment and projects,
educates the college community, and advises the President. It is composed of about 21
members half of which are students and the other half faculty and staff.
The EC has worked on policy and outreach efforts related to management of college
lands, environmentally preferred purchasing, energy, transportation, food, and carbon
neutrality. Instrumental in the College’s carbon neutrality initiative, the Environmental
Council established a working group to investigate options for reducing carbon dioxide
emissions on campus, providing the foundation for carbon neutrality at Middlebury.
The Environmental Council also awards grants to members of the college community for
sustainability projects. These resources have given students, faculty, and staff an
opportunity to create and participate in over seventy projects that further Middlebury’s
sustainability goals.
Comprised of a cross-section of faculty, staff, and students, the EC meets monthly
throughout the academic year. Its committees meet in between on an as-needed basis.
2015 Academic Year Foci
During the 2015 academic year the EC focused its efforts in four areas:
1. Outreach and solicitation of feedback from the college community about
Middlebury’s progress as a leader on sustainability in higher education and what
its vision and strategy should be for the next 5 years, using the recent
Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System (STARS) report.
2. Investigating and quantifying options for meeting and exceeding the national
Real Food Challenge for college dining purchasing.
3. Follow up on the campus microgrid recommendations by the Middlebury School
of the Environment and a J-Term class feasibility analysis of a campus microgrid.
4. Solicitation of requests for proposals, awarding of grants, and follow up with
grantees.
The EC also devoted some time to discussing a project of SRI club members regarding
the assessment of publicly traded companies in the endowment portfolio and their
carbon emissions impacts. No action was taken.
Summary of Findings and Recommendations
1. Outreach and Visioning – Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating
System (STARS) Committee
Summary
The EC partnered with the Office of Sustainability Integration (OSI) to hold a series of
meetings with various groups around campus. The meetings provided an introduction to
the results of a comprehensive assessment of sustainability progress at the college
completed by the OSI in the spring of 2014. The assessment is based on the
Sustainability Tracking Assessment and Rating System (STARS) developed by the
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (see Appendix 1).
Middlebury’s OSI and Environmental Affairs staff were part of a consortium of higher
education staff and faculty who helped develop STARS starting in 2006. Participants at
the meetings were also asked to share their definition of sustainability and to identify
what the college is doing well in this area and what it could be doing better. The
following groups were engaged:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
March 2 – Community Council
March 11 – Staff Council
March 13 – Faculty Meeting
March 17 – Department Coordinators
March 23 – College Advancement
April 1 – Facilities Service
April 7 – Town Hall Open Forum
April 29 – Art and Architecture Class
April 30 – German class
April 30 – Dining Services
May – June – LIS, Admissions…others TBD
These meetings are part of a 9-month process the OSI is conducting to develop a vision
and strategies for advancing Middlebury’s sustainability leadership over the coming five
years and to help establish priorities for that period. The first phase of outreach and
engagement is nearly complete. The OSI will work with the data gathered during the
outreach sessions and develop a draft summary of findings from the feedback received.
During the summer it will circulate that summary for further comment and feedback
and develop a draft vision and strategy document for review and comment by the EC
and many other groups in the fall of 2015. The plan is to have a final guiding document
by the end of October 2015 to help shape the priorities and activities of the OSI and the
College to advance it s leadership in sustainability.
To date about 150 comments and suggestions have been posted on a Crowdicity
website (see Appendix 1) set up to capture and share the feedback received from the
outreach and feedback sessions.
Recommendations
While the process described above is in progress and has another six months to go, the
EC has the following recommendations regarding this effort.
• Review the comments and feedback thus far and identify any actions that could and
should be implemented soon.
• Review the STARS report with departmental heads to identify areas where we could
improve and make a plan for implementing actions to do so.
• Provide a briefing of the STARS report and plans for improvement for new President
and for Trustees as well.
• Review and revise the institutional definition of sustainability at Middlebury to make
explicit our commitment to social equity and justice.
• Identify ways that the STARS process and criteria could be integrated into the
curriculum and coursework. Conduct a roundtable with faculty to discuss this idea.
• Do an annual check-in to determine if there have been significant changes that
warrant an update of the STARS report and the College’s rating.
• Consider conducting the STARS assessment on a two-year cycle rather than the
current three-year cycle.
• Bring next year’s EC up to speed quickly about where the STARS process is and identify
what role the EC will play in the completion and implementation of the visioning and
strategy process.
2. Real Food Challenge Committee
Summary
Middlebury has participated in the Real Food Challenge for the past two years. This is a
national campaign to increase the purchasing of “real” food at higher education
institutions across the country. Real food is defined as food that meets on or more of
the following criteria: local, ecologically produced, humane, and fair trade. The goal is
for all higher education institutions to achieve at least 20% of the food served on
campus meeting the Real Food criteria.
To determine the percentage of real food purchasing Middlebury has analyzed all food
purchasing receipts for the months of October, March, and July for the past two years.
This required tracing the receipt back to the ultimate source of the item purchased and
ascertaining whether it is produced in a way that meets one or more of the Real Food
criteria. The results are stored in an online database to make future analyses easier.
Dining Services is also implementing new menu management software that will make
this task immensely easier.
The EC formed a partnership with Dining Services, EatReal student group, Office of
Sustainability Integration, and Student Government Association to assess the current
status of Real Food purchasing and the extent of support from students for increasing it.
Their findings in the fall included:
● 25.4% of Middlebury College’s food qualifies as real food.
● 1,150 students signed an EatReal petition in 2013 to increase local food.
● SGA survey found 60% student support of creating a more sustainable food system.
● In April 2014, SGA passed a bill supporting 30% real food by 2015-2016 academic year.
Based on further analysis using statistical software (STATA) to help find which food
items could be switched to change their qualification to Real for the least cost, the
group proposed a two phase strategy for achieving 50% real food by 2020:
● Step 1: Goal of 30% by 2016. Implement product switches identified by Dining
Services.
● Step 2: Goal of 50% by 2020. By spring of 2016, research and propose strategy.
In December, 2014 President Liebowitz and VP for Finance Patrick Norton committed
Middlebury College to the Real Food Challenge with a goal of 30% Real Food by 2016.
With a 30% goal, Middlebury is among the top ten leading schools. They also expressed
support for reaching 50% by 2020 but asked for more research. Two students, Natalie
Valentin and Lucy Reading did an independent study this J-term to begin the research
with the intention of providing preliminary ideas in May for how to reach 50%.
The following are the options under consideration at this time. Interns working for the
Office of Sustainability Integration and Dining Services will conduct further research
over the summer.
Preliminary Recommendations – further research to be conducted over the summer
1. Product switches
Since the 30% commitment was signed in December, Dining Services has made a
number of conventional to real product switches, including fair trade bananas,
organic spinach and spring mix, and local beef patties. A winter term
independent study estimated that these changes have already brought the
College up to 27% real food. The student researchers also began identifying
further potential product switches by working with Dining Services and their
primary distributors, Reinhart Food Service and Black River Produce. Based on
their findings from one month of research, they found that by switching 37
products (selected from the top 50 products that Dining Services spends the
most on annually) to either local or organic, the College could reach 50% real
food with an 18.6% ($745,644) increase in the budget. It should be noted that
this is a very high estimate and that with more time and coordinating with our
distributors, more cost-effective switches could be found (see Appendix 3).
2.
Sourcing and storage through Reinhart Food Service
Reinhart Food Service is currently Middlebury College’s primary food distributor,
and working with them is currently the best short-term and least labor-intensive
way by which to expand our Real Food. They have expressed significant interest
in supporting the College’s Real Food commitment, including inviting a group of
students from EatReal to visit their facilities and speak with their local food
purchasers. Middlebury’s other main distributor, Black River Produce, is best
positioned to source local products. However, Reinhart is more capable of
sourcing humane, fair and ecologically-sound products such as fish and fruit.
Reinhart also has frozen storage space in its warehouse that the College could
utilize to purchase in bulk and store products including local produce throughout
the winter and spring.
3.
Contracts with local farmers
Either through Reinhart or independently, the College can look to increase the
amount of contract growing that it does with local farmers. Dining Services
currently contract grows from La Lumiere Farm, Lewis Creek Farm, and the
Middlebury College Organic Farm (MCOF). Recent examples include butternut
squash and basil, and could include: baby spinach, cherry tomatoes, broccoli
crowns, romaine lettuce, green bell peppers, Spanish onions, mushrooms, Roma
tomatoes. The College could also look outside of Addison County for more
opportunities to contract grow, or work with innovative companies such as
JustCut Vermont out of the Food Venture Center in Hardwick, which sells pre-
processed and frozen local vegetables year-round. These partnerships not only
allow the College to lock in low prices for large quantities, but also give farmers
much needed financial security as they plan their crops for the year.
4.
Expanded Processing and Storage Space
Renovating the Freeman International Center to create additional storage and
processing space would not only allow the College to take in more local food, but
also allow Dining Services to improve its catering operations. With the proposed
renovation, however, additional frozen storage would still be necessary. The
College could negotiate its contract with Reinhart to include using storage in
their warehouse or rent out space from Vermont Refrigerated Storage. The
Hannaford Career Center’s mobile processing unit could also cover additional
processing needs. FIC also poses problems in terms of delivery, because it is not
oriented well for trucks to drop-off products.
Taking a long-term perspective, investing in a new on-campus facility could be a
worthwhile investment. This would allow the building to be designed to facilitate
smooth delivery of products and include all of the necessary storage and
processing space to cover both increase real food as well as catering operations.
The new facility could also include meat processing space, like what used to be in
Proctor, to allow Dining Services to bring in larger cuts of humane and local
meat.
5.
Leasing the College’s agricultural lands
The College currently owns 300 acres of tillable land and 100 acres of pasture
that could be used for agriculture. This land could be leased to new and/or
experienced farmers who want to learn to grow for large institutional buyers
such as the College. In exchange for land and mentorship, these farmers would
commit to a multi-year contract to grow produce and/or raise livestock for
Dining Services. This option would greatly increase campus food security, as well
as provide a wealth of educational and internship opportunities for students.
6.
Middlebury version of Real Food criteria
The EC next year should examine the Real Food criteria more closely and
consider whether we should change or add criteria that are more specific and
relevant to Middlebury and Vermont/Regional situation as a whole.
3. Campus Microgrid for Climate Change Resiliency Committee
Summary
Background
During the 2014 session of the Middlebury School of the Environment a group of
students wrote a report outlining the increased vulnerabilities to the Middlebury
College campus as a result of climate change (Baker et al. 2014). They noted that the
Vermont Climate Assessment predicted increased precipitation and extreme weather
events as a result of climate change, and that these could threaten the reliability of the
utility grid. This could result in an increased frequency and/or duration of power
outages at Middlebury College. One suggestion they made was to implement a
microgrid on the Middlebury College campus.
“A microgrid is essentially a smaller version of what we know as the
utility-owned grid…The difference is that a microgrid is capable of
running independently of the broader gird so that it is more resilient in
the face of increasingly severe and erratic weather patterns…. [It] is a
local power system that connects distributed energy resources (DERs) to
nearby communities. DERs can come in many forms, including everything
from renewables…to more conventional sources… Microgrids offer a
balance of local control over energy use and production, while
maintaining connection to the utility grid. [They] have been implemented
at universities, hospitals, military bases…organizations that have…a
serious interest in sheltering themselves from extended grid blackouts.”
(Baker et al. 2014)
As a continuation of this report another group of students conducted a microgrid
feasibility study during the Winter term of 2015 (see Alles et al. 2015 for their report).
Here we compile the findings and recommendations of Baker et al. (2014) and Alles et
al. (2015).
Background and existing infrastructure
Currently, the College has a biomass combined heating and power plant (CHP), a
steam distribution system from the biomass plant to many of the buildings around
campus, a 143 kW photovoltaic (PV) solar array behind Bicentennial Hall along with
another 500 kW PV array across town, a small wind turbine, a two-point connection to
Green Mountain Power (GMP)’s wider grid, and its own power lines. This infrastructure
provides heating and electricity to 60-80 buildings and a campus population of 3,000
people.
In the CHP plant, #6 fuel oil and local woodchips are gasified to make steam. The
woodchips produce 3-5 MMkWh per year. The system uses approximately 20,000 tons
of wood chips per year and has a payback period of 12 years. The #6 fuel oil will be
replaced with biomethane in 2016, provided the project remains on schedule. The plant
creates both heat and electricity through cogeneration that meets the entire campus
thermal demand and an average of 19% of the electrical demand. The remainder is
provided largely through purchases from the local utility, Green Mountain Power, while
one percent comes from solar and wind near campus.
Challenges
The Middlebury Microgrid Feasibility study, identified a few of the potential
challenges to implementing a microgrid system at the College. These findings are
preliminary and are meant to lay the foundation for further study by experienced
consultants. The report identifies challenges from a technological and economic
perspective.
Generation capacity
Middlebury generates about 20% of the electricity on campus and purchases the
remaining 80% from the GMP. In addition generation only takes place when the CHP
plant is being run to make heat. This generated electricity is not sufficient for campus
demand in the event of an emergency situation. The gap between generation and
demand would have to be bridged through a combination of reduced demand (by load
shedding scheme) and increased generation (see below).
Monitoring
The College does not currently have the monitoring or energy management
system (EMS) capable of measuring and controlling the campus load. Energy
management is currently monitored by two systems from Automated Logic and Siemens
EMS, which give facilities some control to manage the campus energy system from a
centralized interface. They use sensors called Programmable Logic Controls (PLCs) or
Remote Terminal Units (RTUs) with the capability of automating systems to function
differently under varying conditions. Our energy infrastructure on campus differs
widely by building. For example, in Starr Hall there is centralized control over heat
pumps and hot water at the building level while in BiCentennial Hall there are advanced
controls over devices such as fume lids, lighting, chillers, and temperature sensors at the
room level.
Utility grid tie-in
A microgrid would require an upgrade from the current grid tie-ins to Automatic
Transfer Switches (ATS). These switches automatically recognize a drop in electric load
coming from the grid. This capability would serve two crucial roles for the Middlebury
microgrid. First, ATS would be used to immediately island the campus so that all energy
produced would remain within the microgrid.1 Second, the ATS infrastructure would be
used to instantaneously reduce on-campus consumption to below on-campus
production levels. This would ensure that an on-campus blackout was avoided. This
reduction in electricity-use is referred to as load shedding, accomplished via strategically
placed ATS throughout the campus distribution network
There is currently very little federal and state regulation/oversight of microgrids.
While this is slowly changing, in most cases the local utility is the arbiter of electricity
projects. This is no different for Vermont: before installing more generating capacity and
implementing a microgrid on Middlebury’s campus, we would need to talk to Green
Mountain Power about feeding power back into their lines. Our primary goal in the
microgrid is to supply power to the campus and not to the larger GMP grid. As this is our
main goal, we would want to stay away from designating ourselves as an independent
power producer. This designation would force us to pay transmission and distribution
charges on electricity that was sent back onto the main GMP grid. If our microgrid was
designed in a way that necessitated a grid feed-in, there is the potential for becoming a
“smart grid node” on the GMP network. This option would again fall to the discretion of
GMP. As made evident by the authority role of local utilities in the design and
implementation of microgrids, good communication with GMP will be integral to the
success of this project. The re-synchronization of microgrid to macro-grid is delicate, and
GMP must be well equipped to handle the load surge associated with this reconnection.
There is a high possibility that the college would have to purchase and install a load
bank with the capacity to convert or dissipate excess power via a contained, organized
and fully controllable load.
Economic and carbon cost
The financing of an infrastructure project requires serious consideration of the
financial paybacks. From the winter term feasibility study, we can begin to understand
the potential costs of such a system. However, it is not possible to truly project a
number at this stage without further study due to information that is at this stage
unknown. A preliminary estimate with the report's recommended generation choice
estimates that for a 1MW power package, including installation, gas compression, and a
factory protection plan is $5.3-$5.6 million. For the low emissions version with a gas
conditioning skid, we estimate $6.4-$6.7 million. The net heat rate for the C1000 power
package is 10,300 btu/kWh. As of last 2013, the commercial price for natural gas in
Vermont was around $7.57/Mcf, or $7.39/MMBtu. This would put our fuel cost at
$0.076/kWh, or approximately $608,554 for a year of continuous operation at 1MW.
1
This switch is more formally known as a Power Control Center (PCC) switch, a specialized ATS.
Any change in our energy portfolio, from GMP-provided to on-campus
generation, would need to be done in accordance with Middlebury’s carbon neutrality
commitment. The natural gas scenario above would emit roughly 4,373 metric tons
carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCDE). To fulfill the College’s commitment to carbon
neutrality, these emissions would necessitate buying carbon offsets. The 2007 MiddShift
Carbon Neutrality Toolkit found offsets for $7-$10 per MTCDE from Native Energy,
which would put annual offset costs between $30,600 and $43,700 a year. We propose
expanded use of biomethane to fuel these turbines instead of natural gas.
Opportunities
A campus microgrid provides many benefits.
 By allowing the campus grid to be islanded the campus energy system is
much more resilient.
 Middlebury College currently pays a price for its energy that is based on it
peak usage. Through a microgrid’s monitoring and generation capacities,
it is possible to decrease this peak level (by increasing on-campus
generation at this time and decreasing use). This could result in economic
benefits from lower energy bills, though the payback period for this
benefit alone would be very long and is hard to calculate.
 A microgrid offers Middlebury closer control over its energy portfolio,
allowing continued commitment to our status as a sustainability leader.
Recommendations
We recognize the economic costs and technological complexities of
implementing a microgrid on the Middlebury campus. As such we propose a set of
recommendations that build toward that goal, but are useful on their own as well.
Building student engagement with the campus energy system
It is important to find ways to bring awareness of the project to the student body
and gain support from the Middlebury College community through activities like panels
like the one held in Fall 2014, and keeping students informed in the happenings of the
microgrid. Future projects to engage the student body can include further studies in the
classrooms that will directly engage Middlebury College students to the project, realize
their relevancy, and contribute to the wider feasibility study of the microgrid. Although
our report outlines the findings of the past year and our recommendations for the
future, research is by no means over. The project will not be able to more forward
without the support of the Middlebury College students, faculty, and staff, and so it is
indispensable that we continue to engage the broader Middlebury community in the
endeavor to create a more resilient community. The EC and OSI should educate senior
staff about the microgrid study, especially those who deal with risk management.
Behavioral demand response
Middlebury is billed on its energy used based on its peak rate. This happens
during the middle of hot summer days. With the enhanced monitoring and control
technologies of a microgrid there is the ability to decrease energy use during this time
and bring down the peak. But even without a microgrid one can anticipate these times
and take steps to mitigate the peak. One such step is behavioral demand response
(BDR), a program to encourage changes in behavior that lower energy use during peak
times (e.g., text messages to students not to use dryers on very hot days). Michelle
McCauley has studied BDR in her Environmental Psychology course, and we propose the
EC continues working with her to think about possible BDR programs at Middlebury.
Role of Green Mountain Power
In thinking of the feasibility of the microgrid in the future, we would additionally
like to recommend meeting with the utility shareholders of Green Mountain Power to
analyze the feasibility of the project and what Middlebury can do to increase its
resilience in other manners. Based in the various findings of the feasibility report, it is
necessary that we further narrow down what is what is not feasible for the college to
do. Keeping this contact will also allow the College to continue conducting energy
efficiency measures now and in the coming years. Continued communications about the
project with Middlebury College staff and the GMP shareholders will also be extremely
relevant in creating a concrete feasible plan that can bring the results of the study into
concrete and reliable action
Sources
Alles, K, et al. 2015. Middlebury College Microgrid Feasibility Analysis. Winter
term 2015 course report. Middlebury College, Middlebury VT.
Baker, I., Cort, A., Kluchinski, D., and Parker, J. 2014. Recommendations for
Vulnerabilities of Middlebury College when Facing Climate Change 2014–2-35. The
Middlebury School of the Environment. Middlebury College, Middlebury, VT.
4. Grants
The following is a list of projects that received EC grants this year:



Ian Burgin Memorial Lodge, $2,500 to fund the design and construction of a
shared-use lodge on the Breadloaf Campus. Phoebe Howe, Larson Lovdal, Sarah
Kaelin, Joseph Mutter, Jack Kerby-Miller.
Bringing Microgrid Experts to Campus for Feasibility Study, $2,025. Isaac Baker.
Shower Timers to Increase Water Use Efficiency, $500 for the purchasing of
shower timers. Jessica Chen.






2014 IUCN World Parks Congress in Sydney, Australia, $500 to help cover travel
and registration. Morgan Raith.
Weybridge House Food Processor, $300 to purchase industrial food processor for
efficient food processing and storage. Jeannie Bartlett.
Sustainability Integration Pilot Project at C. V. Starr Middlebury School in Japan,
$2,500 to research and implement pilot project aimed at building sustainability
into curriculum. Will serve as model for other C. V. Starr schools abroad. Sanae
Eda.
Sustainable Coffee Farming in Costa Rica, $500 to help cover cost of alternative
spring break trip to a coffee farm in Costa Rica. Evelin Toth and Andra Pascu.
Connecting With the Land Through Sustainable Practices with Plenitude
Organization in Las Marias, Puerto Rico, $500 to help cover cost of alternative
spring break trip to Puerto Rico. Marjeela Basij-Rasikh and Naina Qayyum.
Middlebury Fermenter’s Guild, $320 to fund an education fermenter’s guild on
campus. Kent Ratliff.
One suggestion made by EC members to increase the use of grant funds: have the EC
and OSI identify sustainability issues and challenges that need to be addressed and
challenge students faculty and staff to submit proposals to address them.
Appendix 1: STARS Report summary handout
The STARS Report summary handout is available here. Comments and responses to the
report are available here.
Appendix 2: 2014-2015 Environmental Council Members
Students












Forrest Carroll ‘15
Tiffany Chang ‘17
Nate Cleveland ’16.5 (Campus Sustainability Coordinators Liason)
Sarah Dohan ‘17.5
Sarah Gledhill ‘17
Oscar Johansson ‘18
Alia Johnson ‘16
Shaojin Li ‘16
Mary "Wei Wei" Magnuson ‘16
Dylan McGarthwaite ‘15
Anahi Naranjo ‘17
Mariah Neilsen ‘18





Ethan Reilly ‘17
Erin Van Gessel ’17.5
Sophie Vaughan ‘17
Natalie Valentin ‘15
Lindsay April Warne ’15 (SGA Environmental Affairs Liaison)
Faculty




David Allen, Biology
Natalie Eppelsheimer, German, Co-Chair
Kemi Fuentes-George, Political Science
Sallie Sheldon, Biology
Staff







Jack Byrne, Director, Office of Sustainability Integration. Co-Chair
Sophie Esser Calvi, Global Food Studies Coordinator
Paul Dow, PM Manager, Retail Food Ops
Francisca Drexel, Academic Dept. Coordinator, Film & Media Culture/Asst, CCSRE
Victoria "Tori" Jones, Asst. Dir. Annual Giving
Kristin Smith, Outreach/Communications Coordinator, Office of Sustainability
Integration June 2014 to February 2015
Eva Fillion, Outreach/Communications Coordinator, Office of Sustainability
Integration, March 2015 to present.
Appendix 3: Proposed product switches in order to achieve 30%,
40% and 50% real food