TGIF Final Report: University Hall, Going Green!
Project Leaders’ Names: Ian Baldridge & Rebecca Andersen
Project Title: University Hall, Going Green!
Fiscal Sponsor and any Partnering Organizations: CACS Green Fund partnered with the effort in
distributing task lighting; Building Sustainability at Cal (BS@C) assisted with energy audits and
education efforts; GO! Team assisted with window film application.
Project Summary
Goals of the project- what did you set out to accomplish? What campus need were you trying
to fill?
Together the occupants of University Hall began an initiative to incorporate sustainability into
building operations. End goals including raising sustainability awareness, changing occupant
behavior to conserve energy and contributing to reducing whole building energy consumption,
which would thereby contribute to the building goal of LEED EBOM certification.
Accomplishments and successes – what went well?
The project had four distinct parts, each with their own accomplishments.
1) Appliance Replacement: Throughout the building old, energy-intensive appliances (mainly
refrigerators) were replaced with energy star models. Annual energy savings from this project is
projected. In addition, this project garnered goodwill in the building and built up enthusiasm for
sustainability. Many departments were utilizing refrigerators that barely met their needs,
simply because the discretionary funding did not exist for their replacement. The new energy
star model refrigerators not only saved energy but also better served the needs of the
departments, showing that sustainability can be easy and enjoyable.
2) Task Lighting: At the time of this grant’s inception (2009), the majority of University Hall
occupants resided in single offices or 2-3 person shared office spaces. An initial survey by
Building Sustainability at Cal (BS@C) of University Hall occupants found that out of 304 offices,
only 49 offices used task lighting while the rest relied on overhead lighting which is energy
intensive and can result in eye strain. Most University Hall workers use computers for their daily
work and the brightly lit overhead lights can produce glare on monitor screens, leading
residents to experience eyestrain, fatigue and headaches. Task lighting reduces glare and gives
occupants the ability to control and vary the amount of light they receive based on the task at
hand.
In addition to the ergonomic benefits, task lighting saves energy. Typical overhead lighting in a
University Hall office consumes 240 watts while the task lighting distributed as part of this grant
utilized Compact Fluorescent Light bulbs, which consumed only 14 watts each. Reducing our
dependence on overhead lighting also helps the building regulate temperature in the summer
months. University Hall is not mechanically cooled and keeping overhead lights off during warm
days can reduce the heat load experienced.
A few additional things contributed to the success of task lighting:
- Choosing attractive task lamps: For this grant, three different task lamps, each a slightly
different style and all costing under ten dollars each were purchased. The project was well
received in part because residents were offered a choice of task lamps and special attention
was paid to ensuring the lamps would be considered attractive and functional by the majority
of residents. This included purchasing task lamps that would provide “ambient light” as
opposed to “directional light”. Most task lights used in office settings are directional and are
meant to be used to light a specific task at hand. What University Hall residents were looking
for is an ambient style light that would provide a warm glow to their entire desk area.
- Offering a choice of CFLs: CFLs come in a wide variety of shades of white light, ranging from
yellowish to white to bluish white light. Purchasing CFLs in a variety of shards allowed the
residents to customize the mood of their spaces. Most occupants preferred “warm” color CFLs,
which match the yellowish light of incandescent bulbs, while some others gravitated towards
“cooler” colors (whiter or bluer lights) which more closely matched natural daylight.
- Holding educational outreach events for task light distribution: The majority of task lights
were distributed through educational outreach events. This allowed the Green Team to educate
occupants on the benefits of task lighting (both environmental and ergonomic), how to use
CFLs and how to dispose of CFLs properly. There were many misconceptions to overcome on
the use of CFLs; holding face-to-face educational events helped to educate occupants and
change behavior at work and at home.
The task lighting project was funded jointly by TGIF and CACS Green Fund; over 200 task lights
were distributed in University Hall and many other buildings on campus have asked for advice
in implemented similar programs for their buildings. For more information on the task lighting
project, please see the attached Green Fund Grant task lighting poster.
3) Window Film: Most offices in University Hall have either East or West facing windows.
Because of this, there is a large amount of heat loading in the building. Occupants on the 3 rd
floor asked if a pilot program for the building could be launched, installing window film on that
floor to see how the film made a difference in heat loading. Occupants volunteered to selfinstall window film in their offices.
Unfortunately, it has been difficult to tell what difference window film has made. Installation of
the firm proved to be time consuming and challenging; after seeing the amount of work
involved, most occupants decided not to install any window film at all.
Eventually the GO! Team was hired to help install film; while this did prove to be a big help, GO!
Team members still had to be trained and supervised during installation, which slowed
progress. In addition, most occupants who wanted film couldn’t make their offices available at
reasonable times for the installation to take place. Only a total of 12 offices had window film
installed.
4) Outreach: University Hall held its first “green coffee hour” in fall 2008; the green coffee hour
was designed to an educational and fun event. Coffee and pastries were provided and
occupants were encouraged to “BYOM: bring their own mugs”. All occupants who practiced
BYOM were entered into a drawing for a bicycle helmet, reusable shopping bag or “I heart tap
water” reusable bottle. BS@C did informational tabling on recycling and task lighting. The event
was light-hearted and fun for all.
A second green coffee hour was held in 2009; this time the event was expanded to including
tabling from local/relevant sustainability organizations including City CarShare.
Since then many other buildings have held green coffee hour events patterned after this initial
event at University Hall.
Challenges and obstacles – what were the challenges/obstacles in this project and how did
you handle these? There were three main challenges we ran into for this grant:
1) Window Film Application: Relying on volunteers to install their own window film was a
challenge. Initially, enthusiasm was high for “DIY” window film. Once people saw the amount of
work involved, their enthusiasm waned. This was handled by hiring the GO! Team for
installation, but unfortunately this did not solve the problem as the GO! Team’s availability and
skill installation were limited and occupants did not readily make their offices available for the
installation to occur. Due to this experience, the DIY approach to window film installation is
NOT recommended.
2) Project Management: This grant was written by the EH&S Sustainability Committee. The
committee expected to administer the grant in 1-2 years time. Unfortunately, because the
grant was being managed by a committee, there was not a clear sense of project management
and the process took much longer than expected. In addition, documentation suffered as there
were many people involved with various components of the grant and no one person managed
the project and collected the documentation.
3) Website Development: Unfortunately we underestimated the amount of time and money
involved in website development. We did not have the time to generate the content necessary
and we did not have the money to hire professional designers for creating the site. An attempt
was made to use a student design group for development; this attempt did not work due to
conflicting schedules and the lack of content developed. Eventually funds were shifted away
from website development and towards funding the Green Coffee Hour events.
Did you have to make any changes from your original application submission?
Three main changes were made: the request to allocate some funds towards window film, the
request to allocate some funds towards the purchase of task lighting and a request to no longer
dedicate funds towards the development of a building sustainability website.
Is there anything you wish you had known before you started the project?
The importance of documentation and clear project management.
Is there anything about the process you wish you could have changed or do over?
Yes. I would have designated a single point of contact for project management.
Feedback to TGIF – Is there anything that TGIF could have done to better advise or help your
project?
The revisions in the grant application forms help solve many of the issues we had in this grant
cycle. It forces clear project management to be determined from the beginning as well as a
good timeline and clear process of documentation be developed.
Actual Timeline of the project from start to completion?
Summer 2008: Materials purchased for window film.
Fall 2008: BS@C students conducted a survey of break room and personal appliances,
identifying potential replacements for old, non-energy efficient models. Individuals with
personal appliances (focusing on refrigerators) were encouraged to instead share appliances
with larger populations.
Fall 2008: Began developing website content; discussed with IST the potential for having their
department create the website. Determined that having IST involved in design was too
expensive.
Winter 2008: Held the first Green Coffee Hour for University Hall, showcasing task lighting and
sustainable practices.
Fall 2008- Summer 2012: Outreach was conducted to various departments who owned
appliances identified as needing to be replaced. Replacements were made as necessary,
including:
-
Room 140 previously had 2 personal refrigerators with a combined 911 kwh/year
(estimated). These refrigerators were replaced with one 18.2 ft3 standard refrigerator
(energy star certified) with an estimated 383 kwh/year.
-
-
-
-
Room 171 previously had 4 personal refrigerators and one standard size refrigerator
with a combined kwh/year of 3269 (estimated). This was replaced with one energy star
refrigerator with an estimated 400 kwh/year.
The School of Public Health Library had one standard size refrigerator that was
manufactured in 1984; this refrigerator used an estimated 1345 kwh/year and was
replaced with an energy star certified 18.2 ft3 standard refrigerator with an estimated
383 kwh/year.
The 3rd floor had 2 older standard size refrigerators replaced with energy star models
and had an older, large coffee maker replaced with a new smaller version as well as an
energy efficient hot pot.
The refrigerator in 615 was replaced with a 4.09 ft3 energy star qualified refrigerator
which uses approximately 270 kwh/yr
The 2nd floor had older, non-energy star compliant refrigerator (Haier Model BC-111) 4
replaced with a 4.4 ft3 Danby energy star model which uses 275 kwh/year.
Spring 2009: Met with Innovative Designs, a student design group interested in designing the
University Hall website. Unfortunately Innovative Designs was not available in the summer and
the lack of content developed slowed progress so this website project was cancelled.
Summer 2009: Window film application was tested in one office. Occupant reported rave
reviews.
Fall 2009: A sign-up sheet for “DIY” window film was circulated. Efforts were made to provide
the DIY volunteers with training and materials for window film application. This effort resulted
in a decrease in volunteer enthusiasm after seeing the amount of skill and effort involved.
Winter 2009: Second Green Coffee Hour held.
Spring 2011 – Summer 2011: Student intern hired to coordinate sustainability education for
University Hall. Student intern was able to produce monthly newsletters, FAQ sheets and
posters for the building.
Fall 2011: Window film installation completed by GO! Team. A total of 12 offices had window
film installed on the 3rd floor.
Sustainability Impact
What quantitative and/or qualitative sustainability impacts did your project have?
The University Hall Going Green! Project raised awareness in sustainability, served as a model
for other organizations/buildings on campus, helped to increase energy efficient behaviors and
improve ergonomics in University Hall and had a direct effect on energy reduction through the
appliance replacement project.
Do you expect on-going benefits (annual cost savings)? Please include estimates of these
impacts.
This project is expected to save money annually due to:
-
The replacement of energy-intensive appliances with energy efficient models
The reduction in use of overhead lighting through providing task lighting to occupants.
Overhead lighting in University Hall offices use an estimated 0.24 kw/hr per office. Using
only task lighting results in an energy usage of 0.028 kw/hr per office (assuming two task
lights per office). It is estimated that there are a total of 304 offices in University Hall.
This means that in University Hall, relying on overhead lighting for all offices would use
72.96 kwh; switching to task lighting reducing the energy consumption to 8.512 kwh,
saving a total of 64.448 kwh. (Please note: the 0.24 kw/hr overhead lighting energy
consumption is an estimate that was made prior to the lighting retrofit project
completed in University Hall after this TGIF grant was awarded and implemented).
Conclusions and next steps – will your project continue on into the future, and if yes, who will
be carrying on the project? What are the next steps for this project?
The EH&S Sustainability Committee continues efforts to promote sustainability. At present, the
committee is more focused on EH&S operations than whole building operations. The building
continues to embrace new sustainability initiatives on campus (including the most recent effort
to introduce composting) and pursue LEED certification. Unfortunately, without firm campus
support LEED certification is not currently a realistic goal.