HOCKINGREEN
40% Carbon Footprint Reduction by 2020
2
Table of Contents
Section
Page
Executive Summary------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 4
HC Carbon Footprint------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 7
Climate Action Plan Committee------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 9
Mitigation Strategies----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
Facilities and Energy------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 10
Land Management Plan------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 32
Future Mitigation Strategies----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 33
Conclusion---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
3
Executive Summary
Hocking College signed the American College and University Presidents’ Climate
Commitment (ACUPCC) on April 19, 2007. Shortly thereafter, the College went through its first
presidential change in forty years resulting in a new president, Dr. Ron Erickson. Dr. Erickson
quickly made sustainability a priority at the College by creating the new Office of Sustainability,
which has implemented sustainability goals for college operations, curriculum and co-curricular
activities. This office is also charged with setting the College on a path to climate neutrality.
The College is dedicated to meet the goals of the seven tangible actions of the ACUPCC. A
green house gas inventory report was completed and submitted in January 2010. This report
concluded that the College’s carbon footprint was 19,988 MT CO2e for the 2008-2009 academic
year. The largest contributor to our footprint was student commuting, with purchased electricity
being the second largest contributor. This report can be viewed at the ACUPCC web site under the
reporting section.
We have implemented two major initiatives in the academic year of 2009-2010 that will
help us achieve our first step in the ultimate goal of climate neutrality. The College had an Energy
Conservation Plan conducted by Aleron, Inc. in the fall of 2009 which yielded 11 Energy
Conservation Measures (ECM) to consider. The implementation of these ECMs began in the spring
of 2010 and will continue for the next several years. These projects will result in cost savings,
improved work environments for Hocking College employees, aesthetic facility improvements,
and reductions to our emissions. Secondly, we have begun to develop a comprehensive land
management plan for our nearly 2,500 acres of forested campus property. This plan is being
developed with the goal of seeking certification through the Sustainable Forestry Initiative. The
land management plan will create a plethora of educational opportunities involving sustainability,
develop a healthier ecosystem and maximize the potential to count our campus property as a
carbon offset. In addition to reducing our carbon footprint, the combination of these two
initiatives will have many positive impacts on our physical campus and campus community.
Hocking College has set a goal of reducing our carbon footprint by 40% over the next ten
(10) years. This percentage was chosen as realistic goal by calculating the potential reductions
that each initiative has the ability to produce. We will be submitting annual progress reports
charting our advancement of carbon reduction. Furthermore, we will be submitting additional
long term plans to address the remaining 60% of our footprint as we near 2020. All of these plans
will be discussed in more detail in this report.
4
Introduction
Founded in 1968, Hocking College is nationally recognized as a premier technical college
providing superior experiential education for a diverse group of learners from around Ohio, the
United States, and throughout the world. Hocking College offers over 40 associate degree
programs at three different campus locations (Nelsonville, New Lexington, and Logan). Students
are engaged in “real world” learning and our award-winning programs have earned us a
reputation for academic excellence both nationally and abroad. Hocking College is a public, open
access technical college with a focus on training associate degree graduates. The North Central
Association of Colleges accredits Hocking College. The total headcount at the College as of fall
quarter 2009 is 6,341.
There are several specific features of Hocking College that make our goals to achieve
carbon neutrality realistic and fiscally feasible:
1. Community – Athens County, Ohio is home to a growing network of green
businesses/organizations supported by Hocking College. This includes alternative energy
companies like Third Sun and Dovetail Wind and Solar, the largest open-air farmers market
in the state of Ohio, prominent non-profit providers such as Rural Action and ACEnet,
educational partner Ohio University and federal and state government partners like Wayne
National Forest and Ohio Department of Natural Resources. This network is woven
throughout Athens County and Southeast Ohio with a culture that embraces sustainable
living.
2. Logan Energy Institute – This educational facility hosts the only two-year college in
Appalachian Ohio offering comprehensive training programs that address multiple types of
advanced energy, including automotive hybrids, fuel cell technology and interdisciplinary
courses in solar energy, wind turbines and hydro electrics. Consistent with the College’s
hands-on learning philosophy, the Institute’s green campus permits demonstrations and
experiments on a real-world scale. The presence of functioning alternative energy sources
such as solar power, wind, and fuel cells throughout the Institute’s facilities places the
future in students’ hands today.
3. School of Natural Resources – This is one of the largest academic units at the College
supporting nearly 60 faculty, 1,100 students and 17 degree programs. The School of Natural
Resources proudly graduates more students in Natural Resources and Conservation than
any other associate degree level institution in the country going on 10 years in a row
according to the Community College Weekly annual report. Faculty expertise and strong
student involvement is at the core of the department in fields such as in forestry, wildlife
management, land management, cartography and ecology. These fields of study are
taught with a strong hands-on focus. Natural Resources students typically spend more
than 60% of their time learning in the field or laboratory.
4. Campus Property – Hocking College owns nearly 2,500 acres of forested land throughout
its holdings, with most of the property at the main campus in Nelsonville, Ohio (Figures 1
and 2). Our property includes miles of riparian zone along the Hocking River and natural
gas wells used to heat our buildings. It also includes many acres of land scarred from the
past of mineral and timber extraction that was so prominent in the cultural history of
Southeast Ohio. Our land has many uses, but none more important than education.
5
Figure 1. Main campus of Hocking College.
6
Figure 2. Surrounding properties of the main campus.
7
Hocking College Carbon Footprint
Greenhouse Gas Inventory
A Greenhouse Gas (GHG) inventory provides the College with a specific set of data that
contributes to the overall emissions that the college is responsible for each year. The inventory
does this by calculating the carbon footprint of the campus, the total amount of greenhouse
gases produced directly and indirectly, in terms of metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e)
per year (MTCO2e/yr). The metric system is used in this process to be more compatible in the
international community.
The emissions are separated into three categories, referred to as scopes:
 Scope 1 emissions are direct, meaning that the college directly emits greenhouse gases into
the atmosphere as a result of its activities. This includes 2 sources for Hocking College,
natural gas for heating and transportation emissions from the campus fleet.
 Scope 2 emissions are indirect and solely include purchased electricity. The institution is
responsible for the emissions created for every Kwh that it purchases and uses.
 Scope 3 emissions are also indirect and include all other campus activities that create
greenhouse gases. They include faculty, staff and student commuting, employee air travel,
study abroad travel, and waste management.
The ACUPCC requires all of its participants to complete a GHG inventory within one year of signing
and then update the data at least every other year. HC completed its first GHG inventory in 2009.
The college will minimally submit its next GHG report in 2011 if not also submit a report for 2010 to
fortify its GHG data set.
Clean Air- Cool Planet GHG Inventory Tool
The ACUPCC recommends using the Clean Air-Cool Planet Campus Carbon Calculator to establish
the institution’s overall carbon footprint. The calculator, an elaborate excel spreadsheet, is used
to collect and analyze GHG emissions data. This was the tool used by Hocking College to create its
initial GHG report.
Hocking College Carbon Footprint
The initial GHG inventory submitted for Hocking College examined the fiscal year of 2008-2009.
The summary of the three scopes the were as follows:
Scope 1 Emissions = 519.2 MT CO2e
Scope 2 Emissions = 6, 146.7 MT CO2e
Scope 3 Emissions = 13, 322.5 MT CO2e
TOTAL for FY 2009 = 19, 988.4 MT CO2e
8
It is easy to see how scope 3 dominates the carbon footprint for the institution. Figure 3 makes
this point even more apparent:
Figure 3
Furthermore, the majority (61%) of the scope 3 emissions consist of faculty, staff and student
commuting with the student portion being the most significant. This dynamic is a result of the
rural location of Hocking College despite the presence of 5 residential dormitories. This trend is
quite common with other institutions of higher learning across the country.
9
Climate Action Plan Committee
This diverse committee was created to represent the entire campus community and aid
with the specific projects involved in this plan. The overall committee meets twice a year to
conduct information sharing presentations. Sub-groups of the committee meet on a regular basis
as they pertain to specific projects.
Administration
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
Dr. Ron Erickson, President
Dr. Molly Weiland, Provost and Vice President of Academic and Student Affairs
Dr. Myriah Short, Interim Vice President of Administrative Services
Dr. Jerry Hutton, Dean, International Fuel Cells and Energy
Ron Mash, Director, Building and Grounds
Ken Bowald, Associate Dean, School of Natural Resources
Derek Bobo, Chief Information Officer
Ben Dalton, Chief Technology Officer
Sonja Hill-Puckett, Director, Dining Services
Dr. Bonnie Allen-Smith, Assessment Coordinator
Joe Wakeman, Director of Sustainability
Staff
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
Scott Hoobler, Maintenance Technician
Cliff Dearth, Maintenance Technician
Bob Seel, Maintenance Technician
Will Alder, Fleet Technician
Chuck Potts, Office Coordinator, Bookstore
Faculty
17. Jim Downs, Instructor, Forest Management
18. Lynn Holtzman, Instructor, Wildlife Management
19. Dr. Mike Caudill, Professor, Geoenvironmental Science
20. Kathy Temple, Instructor, Natural Sciences
21. Dave Wakefield, Assistant Professor, Adventure Travel
22. Steve Roley, Instructor, Ecotourism
Students and Alumni
23. Mike Whittemore, Student, Vice President Phi Theta Kappa
24. Spencer Hobson, Student, President Green Club
25. Molly Jo Stanley, Alumni
26. Kyle O'Keefe, Alumni
Board of Trustees
27. Tonya Sherburne, Board Member
10
Mitigation Strategies
Facilities and Energy
Overview
Energy is a major operating cost at Hocking College. Hocking College currently spends over
$900,000 a year on Electric, $200,000 in Gas and $150,000 in Water and Sewer services. In
addition, Hocking College also has gas wells that are producing approximately ½ of the main
campuses gas. In this day of tightening budgets and shrinking resources Hocking College is
looking at every possible opportunity to reduce energy consumption and at lowering the cost of
operating as much as possible. Balancing the implementation costs of an Energy Conservation
project with it long-term benefits presents a particular challenge, as a limited amount of resources
are available. The College is most interested in any measure that has immediate payback yet
desires to do even more as the future depends on making radical changes in the way we use
energy. The long-term focus is on sustainability, which means to us, providing a campus that uses
energy without jeopardizing the future generations and the earth as a whole. Our long-term plan
is to work towards 100% sustainability.
Over the years the College has made a substantial investment in new buildings, building
renovations and upgrades that included energy conservation components. Energy expenditures
have been steadily increasing since 2004. This is due to price increases and growth of the College.
A practice or project that will save energy often creates an improvement in the occupant
environment as well. Improvements in thermal efficiency will also reduce the infiltration of heat or
cold into the space, and comfort usually increases as a result. On the Main Campus, most buildings
have the Heating, Ventilation and Air Conditioning (HVAC) systems operated by a computer over
the campus network. The amount of control and levels of comfort varies with the age of the
building and equipment in the facility.
Energy and energy efficiency is nothing new to Hocking College. Currently a new building, “The
Energy Institute” was constructed as a LEEDS platinum facility utilizing modern advancements
that set the standard for the future at Hocking College. The building is a model of energy efficient
techniques and designs as proven by its LEEDS Platinum classification. Some of the technologies
being utilized are wind and solar power, geothermal heating and cooling, and day lighting, along
with an energy efficient design and building envelope. Hocking College expects this building to
meet Energy Star standards and we will be seeking the Energy Star Label for this facility. All
Facility designs for new or remodeled spaces will consider energy savings and occupant comfort
as primary design criteria.
Currently many opportunities do exist to reduce energy consumption and include; retrocommissioning of existing buildings mechanical systems; heating and cooling plant efficiency
improvements; implementing high-efficiency lighting upgrades throughout the campus; operation
and maintenance improvements associated with the preventative maintenance program and the
upgrading of building HVAC and lighting control systems. Other opportunities also exist in many
areas to continue to reduce campus energy consumption; including improvements to each
Hocking College owned natural gas well. Existing meters on the wells could be upgraded
11
providing more reliable data. As new technology brings on new opportunities their impact on
campus will be explored.
The needed capital dollars necessary to make the efficiency improvement far exceeded the
budget dollars available. Hocking College may be using alternative methods of financing including
the possible use of Ohio House Bill 7, ORC 3345:61-66 as a financial tool to implement some Energy
Conservation Measures.
Energy Consumption
Hocking College has a unique makeup of buildings and energy sources (figure 1). Its rural
Southeastern Ohio location has provided the College with the advantage of drilling 11 natural gas
wells on campus. The main campus is comprised of a collection of buildings with various uses and
many deviate for the traditional classroom environment. A student recreation center with a
swimming pool and a gymnasium is located on the campus. A number traditional 1, 2 and 3 story
classroom buildings, a horse barn with furrier services, a classroom/lab building with gas fired
kilns, a daycare center as well as a book store/warehouse building, and buildings of other varying
uses. Because of this, Hocking College’s energy use is not comparable to many other campuses
around the State.
In addition to the varying building uses, and to complicate things even more, the campus has two
operating gas wells. These wells have been in use for a number of years and one of the two is still
producing gas in a reliable fashion. Supplementing this production source, natural gas is
purchased from two outside suppliers. These different gas sources are connected into a main
campus header that supplies gas to the buildings on the campus. Some meters are located on
campus and over the last few years Hocking College has attempted to keep records of building-bybuilding use.
It was discovered in 2006 that there were numerous leaks. In 2007 some repairs were made to fix
the leaks and a reduction on gas purchases was noticed.
Records have been kept since 2007 on gas supplied to the different buildings. Through analysis of
this data via this study and observation by the staff, it has been determined that the meters are
not accurate. Supporting this determination an independent evaluation of the meters was
performed by UTI in 2008. They also determined that the meters may not be accurate and some
repairs are necessary.
The electrical consumption data is much more accurate as the buildings have meters supplied by
AEP. Only the last three years of data was available for the study.
One on the goals of Hocking College is to improve the recordkeeping and the benchmarking of
existing facilities. Data is being tracked internally now and via Portfolio Manager the EPA online
tool recommended by House Bill Legislation and the Ohio Board of Regents. The College is
working with a company at this time to improve the metering and to possibly restore some of the
gas production capability of the existing wells. We expect that the future will bring more
consistency in the data collected process.
12
With all of the exceptions we did establish a baseline for evaluating our current facilities and
consumption. In this we also had to be creative. Only two years of semi-reliable data was
available for gas consumption analysis and 3 years of electrical consumption data. These baselines
are only an approximation of consumption by building. As mentioned above the analysis of
building-by-building data is not as accurate as we would like, and may be adjusted in the future as
new more reliable data is gathered.
A Summary of the Facilities Studied
Name
Square Footage
North Dorm*
Downhour Dorm*
Davidson Hall
Light/Oakley Hall
Shaw Building
Natural Resources Building
Public Safety Building
Daycare Building
Recreation Center
Hocking Heights Dorm
Petro-Auto Building
Perry County Building**
Total
43,344
48,372
39,483
120,390
14,952
29,905
15,824
3,400
46,791
42,638
16,200
20,971
452,298
*Note: New to campus this year
**Note: Only building not on site with the other buildings
Building Square Footage
North Dorm
Downhour Dorm
16,200
42,638
20,971
43,344
Davidson Hall
48,372
Light/Oakley Hall
39,483
46,791
Shaw Building
Natural Resources Building
Public Safety Building
3,400
Daycare Building
15,824
Recreation Center
120,390
29,905
14,952
Hocking Heights Dorm
Petro-Auto Building
Perry County Building
13
kBtu's Used by Building
140.0
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
40.0
20.0
-
Year 1 KBTU's Per Sq. Ft.
Year 2 KBTU's Per Sq. Ft.
KBTU's by Fuel Type
120.0
100.0
80.0
60.0
Gas 06-07
40.0
Gas 07-08
20.0
-
Elec 06-07
Elec 07-08
Establishing the 2004 Benchmark
All of the available utility data was entered into Portfolio Manager at energystar.gov. Portfolio
Manager is the recommended energy tracking and monitoring program approved by the Board of
Regents and the State of Ohio. This program is run by the EPA and is designed to track energy
efficiency across a portfolio of buildings. The program takes into account data such as square
footage, number of computers, hours of operations. The historical utility data for gas and electric
was entered and tracked. From this data a baseline year is established and changes to the
buildings can be monitored and tracked as to the impact made by changes. The program was also
14
used to establish the carbon footprint of each building and is expressed in tons of Metric tons
of CO2.
It should be noted that the data available for this study did not go back to 2004 and the sources
for building by building historical energy usage is not accurate due to a unique set of
circumstances.
As previously mentioned it has been determined that gas metering is not accurate. The electrical
consumption data is much more accurate as the buildings have meters supplied by AEP. The last
three years of data was evaluated for the study.
With all of the exceptions mentioned above we did establish a baseline for evaluating our current
facilities and consumption. Only two years of semi-reliable data was available for gas
consumption analysis and 3 years of electrical consumption data. The baselines using this data are
only an approximation of consumption by building and may be adjusted in the future as new more
reliable data is gathered. With that consideration and the fact that the data did not account for
total campus consumption, other methods had to be considered for evaluation of ECMs. To
recap, when the building-by-building energy use was evaluated and compared to the total campus
wide consumption as a whole, some energy is “lost” or “missing”. This is either from inaccurate
metering or pipeline losses of gas. However, as a member of the American College & Universities
Presidents’ Climate Commitment, Hocking College is developing a climate action plan with the
ultimate goal of making the campus carbon neutral.
With the technical difficulties listed above kept in mind, a baseline for the campus and the ECM
calculations was established as 110 kBtu per square foot for this campus. We looked at the overall
total energy used by categories of Electricity and Gas. When analyzed as a whole and then
divided by total campus square footage we arrived at the 110 kBtu baseline on average per
building. Obviously some buildings are higher and some are lower and this ration can somewhat
be rationalized by the metered data and building use and type.
Our reduction goal for 2015 will therefore be 22 kBtus per square foot with a target of 88 kBtus
per square foot per building on average per year or lower thereafter.
Current Building Systems
The College is made up of a collection of 37 buildings ranging from classroom buildings to small
century old houses, on the main campus, and scattered in and around the town of Nelsonville.
The College also has a Perry Campus building in New Lexington, and the Energy Institute building
located in Logan. This study has focused on the Main Campus buildings with more than 10,000 FT2
in order to conform to the House Bill legislation. Buildings with less than 10,000 FT2 are not part of
this plan at this time. Many of these buildings on the main campus are 1 to 3 story block wall
classroom buildings that are typical of higher education buildings built in the 1970’s and 1980’s.
This unique collection of buildings is comprised mostly of classroom, meeting, offices, exhibit,
historic, and specialty use spaces. The College, including on and off campus buildings represents a
total of 460,600+ Ft².
15
College Lighting Systems and Lighting Control
The College lighting system mainly consists of magnetic/electro-magnetic ballasts and T12
fluorescent lamps. Some electronic ballasts and T8 fluorescent lamps are also on site but in small
numbers and scattered around in different buildings. The changes from T12 to T8 have taken place
mainly as spaces are renovated or re-lamping is necessary due to maintenance issues. In addition,
some incandescent lamps remain in various locations. Some specialty lighting is present in certain
areas as required. In high bay, outdoor and gymnasium areas there remains a mixture of HID
fixtures of various wattages. Many of the classrooms have occupancy sensors for lighting control
and many areas are still on room light switches, outdoor lighting is on photo sensors. None of the
buildings studied have a centralized lighting control system.
College HVAC Systems
The College HVAC systems are not interconnected and each facility has its own heating/cooling
plant or forced air system, geothermal system, radiant system or other form of Heating and
Cooling. Most have centralized gas fired hot water boilers for heating and chillers to supply chilled
water for cooling. Centralized air handlers condition the air and the air is distributed via ductwork
to the various zones terminal devices such as ceiling diffusers and variable air volume boxes, with
and without reheat capability. John Light and Oakley Hal also have hot water radiant heating on
the perimeter as typical for the era. The systems are of varying age, and designs.
College Automated Control System
The main operating system on the campus is a Building Automation System as manufactured by
Automated Logic Corporation. 75% of the HVAC equipment on the main campus is on previous
generation automation software and systems with varying levels of controllability. Most of the
HVAC units on the automation system are controlled with simply a start/stop capability and
scheduling, while others have full DDC control with energy efficient control strategies. The areas
not on the Automated Logic control system are either on programmable thermostats or older
pneumatic controls and these controls do not have the full capability of the newer systems. Very
little actual classroom-by-classroom control is on the campus; most classroom and office areas are
grouped together by air handling units. Upgrading to room-by-room control is a big part of
controlling energy costs and improving occupant comfort. The College plans on making changes
to classroom-by-classroom control as spaces are renovated.
Perry Campus Building
This building is not on the Main Campus and the size is 20,971 Sq. Ft. The Perry Campus building is
a newer two story building with a mix of packaged HVAC units and forced air heating and cooling.
The lighting systems are older T-12 technology. The analysis showed that this building’s HVAC
systems are operating efficiently for their design type and square footage. The College is in the
process of upgrading the older T-12 fluorescent lights with high efficiency T-8 lighting technology.
Approximately 50% of the building has been converted. This is being done with operating and
maintenance dollars.
16
Summary of Potential Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs)
Total of All ECM’s Above
ECM Description
No.
1. T8 Fluorescent
2. Exit Sign Lighting
3. Day lighting
4. Occupancy Sensors
5. Parking Lot Lighting
6. Outdoor Lighting
7. High Bay Lighting
8. BAS Upgrade
9. Variable Speed
10. Boiler Upgrades
11. Solar Water Heating
Total
Cost
$604,800
$5,000
$3,750
$22,300
$9,000
$3,750
$33,000
$400,000
$45,000
$130,000
$450,000
Total
$1,706,600 $238,516
Energy
Savings/yr
$115,698
$5,980
$1,660
$9,446
$1,980
$1,660
$19,315
$40,000
$34,000
$8,157
$18,000
Reduction
kBtu/ft2/yr
9.80
0.50
0.15
0.80
0.05
0.15
1.63
3.39
2.94
2.40
0.61
Avoided
kgCO2/yr
910,344
47,000
13,400
74,861
4,768
13,400
151,981
314,729
80,000
223,000
277,425
22.42
2,110,908
Estimated
Payback/yrs
5.25
1
2.25
2.4
4.5
2.25
4.9
10
1.3
16
25
7.15
Based on energy savings only, see individual ECMs for estimated maintenance savings.
Summary of Potential Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs)
Inherent in this type of facility, there is extreme diversity in the use of spaces at various times of
the year. The most energy efficient operation would be to have individual room-by-room control
of the HVAC and lighting. This can be completed with today’s technology without compromising
the environment for the students or staff. When an individual space can be shut down when
unoccupied it allows the main system providing the conditioning to the space to throttle back,
saving energy at the unit, which allows the plant to throttle back, saving energy at the boilers or
AC system. The recommendations will all be geared towards providing this overall capability.
ECM will quantify the following recommendations as accurately as possible in “today’s dollars” for
a simple payback. Recognize that most of the individual measures have an extreme interaction on
the others.
ECM #1 Fluorescent Lighting Upgrades
Description:
Upgrade existing 48”, 96” and U-bend fluorescents with T-12 diameter bulbs and magnetic
ballasts to high-efficiency T-8 diameter equivalents. Most of these upgrades can be done within
the existing fixture housing using a retrofit socket and ballast kit. The T-8 technology uses 33%
less power for the same light levels and improved lamp life. Some pockets of T-8 lighting already
exist in some of the classroom buildings, but much of the lighting remains T-12 fluorescent. During
the upgrade, give consideration to converting U-bend fixtures (usually 24” x 24”) to straight tube
24” x 48” T-8 fixtures where possible because the straight tubes are more efficient and straight
bulbs are much less expensive for the same light output.
Example: A four-lamp 24” x 48” troffer fixture using T-12 tubes will consume 180 Watts (4 tubes at
40 Watts each, plus magnetic ballast at 20 Watts), and the T-8 equivalent will consume 122 Watts
17
(4 tubes at 28 Watts each, plus electronic ballast at 10 Watts). In a classroom space one fixture
serves about 50 square feet, costs about $105 to upgrade, and saves 58 Watts (180W before minus
122W after).
Based on classroom use of 75 hours per week, or 3,900 hours per year, at the current average rate
of $0.0888/kWh the savings per fixture are 226 kWh/year or $20/year, and the breakeven period is
5.25 years. Based on total classroom area of 360,000 square feet and assuming 80% of these
spaces are candidates for this upgrade, produces an estimate of upgrading 5,760 fixtures, at a
total cost of $604,800 and producing a reduction of 1,302,912 kWh per year, which saves $115,698
per year at today’s rates. Since one kWh is 3.4 kBtu, this ECM represents a campus-wide savings
potential of 4,429,900 kBtu per year, a contribution to the total savings over the 452,000 square
foot campus (total classes and dorms) of 9.80 kBtu per square foot per year. The net reduction in
atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 910,344 kg/year (based on Energy Star
estimate of 205.5 kg of CO2 equivalent per million Btu). Breakeven for this project is 5.22 years.
ECM#1 T-8 Fluorescent Upgrades
Cost
$604,800
Reduction
9.80 kBtu/SqFt
Energy Savings
Avoided
$115,698 per year
910,344 kg CO2 per year
ECM #2 Exit Sign Upgrades
Description:
Upgrade existing exit signs having incandescent bulbs to LED retrofit kits. The upgraded fixture
will use less than 1/20th of the power and increase the expected maintenance interval from under
1,500 hours to over 35,000 hours. The exact number of fixtures that would benefit from this
upgrade has not been determined. Despite the low power savings per fixture, and small impact to
the overall campus consumption, the continuous operation of exit signs makes this ECM viable
due to its short payback for each unit upgraded.
Example: An incandescent exit sign consumes 80 Watts (two 40 Watt bulbs) while the LED
conversion kit uses only 3 watts. An upgrade costs about $50 per fixture, and saves 77 Watts
(80W before minus 3W after).
Based on 24/7 operation or 8,760 hours per year, at the current average rate of $0.0888/kWh the
savings per fixture are 674 kWh/year or $59/year, and the breakeven period is under 1 year. The
newest buildings (dorms, student center) should already have low power exit signs, and in the
remaining 250,000 square feet of classroom space, based on observing about 6 signs per exit door
and based on one exit per 10,000 square feet, with 2/3 needing upgraded, yields 25 exit doors and
150 signs of which 100 need upgraded. Upgrading 100 exit signs at a total cost of $5,000 produces
a reduction of 67,400 kWh per year, which saves $5,980 per year at today’s rates. This ECM
represents a campus-wide savings potential of 229,000 kBtu per year, a contribution to the total
savings over the campus of 0.5 kBtu per square foot per year. The net reduction in atmospheric
CO2 from avoided power generation is 47,000 kg/year.
ECM#2 Exit Signs
Cost
$5,000
Reduction
0.50 kBtu/SqFt
Energy Savings
Avoided
$5,980 per year
47,000 kg CO2 per year
18
ECM #3 Daylight Sensing Controls
Description:
In those spaces where windows or skylights often allow significant sunlight to be available, such
as the cafeteria, lobby and gathering areas, and some hallways, add daylight sensors to keep the
powered lights off when the sunlight entering the space from outdoors is sufficiently bright. The
Natural Resources student lounge area, for example, has fluorescent cans and troffers of about
800 Watts total that likely would be off an additional 30 hours per week if daylight sensing were
used. This saves 1248 kWh per year, which corresponds to 0.12 kBtu per square foot per year
saved for this building, with a breakeven of less than 3 years.
Example: Natural Resources student lounge area has fluorescent cans and troffers, totaling about
800 Watts. Turning off these lights when sensed daylight is sufficient would likely gain about 30
hours of additional off time per week for the lights, saving 1248 kWh per year or $110 per year at
today’s rates, at an installed cost of $250 for a breakeven of 2.3 years.
Based on this example and estimating that there are 15 locations throughout the campus that
would benefit similarly yields an overall savings of 18,700 kWh per year or $1,660 per year, from a
total upgrade cost of $3,750. This ECM represents a campus-wide savings potential of 63,500 kBtu
per year, a contribution to the total savings over the campus of 0.15 kBtu per square foot per year.
The net reduction in atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 13,400 kg/year.
ECM#3 Daylighting
Cost
$3,750
Reduction
0.15 kBtu/SqFt
Energy Savings
Avoided
$1,660 per year
13,400 kg CO2 per year
ECM #4 Occupancy Sensing Controls
Description:
Add occupancy controls to appropriate light fixture groupings to keep lights off and HVAC in
setback mode whenever possible. Examples of the types of areas that would benefit most from
these controls:
Classrooms. Occupancy sensors with a dropout delay can turn off the lights and relax the heating
or cooling setpoint when occupants have not been sensed in a given classroom within the past
few minutes. The savings is dependent upon how effective the existing habits of the room
occupants are at keeping unneeded lights turned off, but gaining even 2 hours each day would
produce a quick payback for the effort.
Restrooms. Occupancy sensors with a dropout delay can turn off the lights and when visitors
have not been sensed in a restroom within the past few minutes. The savings is dependent upon
traffic levels and how effective the existing habits of the room occupants are at keeping
unneeded lights turned off, but gaining 3 hours of savings each day is not unreasonable, and the
payback is therefore short. Ventilation will need to continue even with the lights off, however
exhaust fans only need to run during the scheduled open hours of the building.
Service Areas (Janitor Closets, Mechanical Rooms, Storage Spaces). Occupancy sensors with a
dropout delay can turn off the lights when occupants have not been sensed in these areas. Some
lights would need to be operated continuously and independent of the sensor to permit safe
egress. Savings in these spaces can be many hours each day due to their non-public nature.
19
Example:
Classroom: Adding classroom motion sensors would gain 2 hours per day, or 750 hours per year,
from operating 2500 Watts of light at installed cost of $400. Savings are 1,875 kWh per year, or
$166 per year, for a 2.4 year breakeven.
Restroom: Adding a wall-mounted occupancy sensor in a restroom would cost $150 to install, and
would save 3 hours per day, or 1000 hours per year, from operating 600 Watts of light. This room
would save 600 kWh per year, or $53 per year, for a 3 year breakeven.
Service Areas: Adding a ceiling-mounted motion sensor in a mechanical room would cost about
$200 to install and save about 5 hours per day, or 1500 hours per year, from operating 900 Watts
of lights, for a total savings of 1350 kWh per year, or $119 per year, for a 1.6 year breakeven.
Based on these individual examples and estimating that there are 40 classrooms, 26 restrooms,
and 12 service areas throughout the campus that would benefit similarly, yields an overall savings
of 106,800 kWh per year or $9,446 per year, from a total upgrade cost of $22,300. This ECM
represents a campus-wide savings potential of 363,120 kBtu per year, a contribution to the total
savings over the campus of 0.80 kBtu per square foot per year. The net reduction in atmospheric
CO2 from avoided power generation is 74,681 kg/year.
Additional savings from setting back the HVAC to when classrooms are unoccupied would be
achieved but are not included in these calculations. It is estimated these savings in heating, air
conditioning and ventilation costs would be roughly similar to the lighting savings.
ECM#4 Occupancy Sensing
Cost
$22,300
Reduction
0.80 kBtu/SqFt
Energy Savings
Avoided
$9,446 per year
74,681 kg CO2 per year
ECM #5 Parking Lot Lighting
Description:
Convert the parking lot HID lighting to induction lighting to greatly reduce energy consumption
and maintenance requirements. The parking lot lights are operated many hours each week
(estimated at 35 hours per week, varies by sun schedule) for safety and convenience, and
replacing the bulbs and ballasts in the highest fixtures now requires a boom truck which is
expensive to arrange. New fixtures are now available with equivalent brightness at nearly half the
wattage of HID, and with very long life which over its life produces maintenance savings
exceeding the energy savings. Additionally, the prominent use of advanced lighting technologies
demonstrates a significant commitment by Hocking College to energy conservation and the high
visibility to campus visitors can be exploited for marketing purposes.
As a part of the project, the tallest parking lot poles should be eliminated and replaced by several,
shorter poles as required, to ease future maintenance by college staff.
Converting the estimated 30 parking lot fixtures to Induction lamp technology would cost about
$9,000 and reduce the consumption of each by 125 Watts, for total savings of 6,825 kWh/yr or
23,205 kBtu/yr, which at today’s rates is about $606/yr with the net effect over the campus
footprint of 0.05 kBtu per square foot per year. The energy breakeven is 14.8 years and
maintenance costs avoided are estimated as the cost of 4 replacement HID bulbs ($30 each), 2
ballasts ($90 each), and labor (4 at $100) totaling $700/fixture over 15 years, or $46/fixture/yr, for a
20
total of $1,380/yr bringing the energy+maintenance breakeven down to 5.3 years. The net
reduction in atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 4,768 kg/yr.
ECM#5 Induction Parking Lot Lighting
Cost
$ 9,000
Reduction
0.05 kBtu/SqFt
Savings
Maint. Savings
Avoided
$ 606 per year
$1,380 per year
4,768 kg CO2 per year
ECM #6 Outdoor and Pole-top Lighting
Description:
Convert the walkway, wall-pack and area pole-top lighting from HID to LED lighting to greatly
reduce energy consumption and maintenance requirements. The area lights are operated many
hours each week (estimated at 35 hours per week, varies by fixture location and sun schedule) for
safety and convenience, and burnt-out bulbs are very inconvenient and can create a safety
priority, but pole-top and wall-pack LED fixtures are now available with equivalent brightness at
well under half the wattage of HID, and with very long life. Additionally, the prominent use of LED
lighting technology demonstrates a significant commitment by Hocking College to energy
conservation and its high visibility to campus visitors can be exploited for marketing purposes.
Example: An LED Wall-Pack fixture costs $400 to purchase plus $100 to install, and reduces the
150 Watt HID usage to 48 Watts, with seven year warranty and 70,000 rated life. Operating 35
hours per week, or 1,820 hours per year, at the 102 Watt reduction saves 185 kWh and $16.50 per
year per fixture. The long LED life eliminates replacing the bulb every 2 years and the ballast every
four years, so within the next 10 years the savings are 5 bulbs ($20), 2 ballasts ($70), and $75 labor
(5 times), for maintenance savings of another $61 per year. Combined, the $77 saved per year
results in a 5.2 year breakeven.
Example: LED Acorn Pole-top Retrofit fixture costs $1,000 to purchase plus $100 to install, and
reduces the 150 Watt HID usage to 48 Watts, so the per-fixture savings are exactly as stated for
the Wall-pack lights above. The breakeven is up to 11.4 years due to higher initial cost.
Estimating that there are 30 wall-packs and 40 pole-top fixtures to be converted yields an overall
savings of 5,550 kWh per year or $492 per year in electric cost, from a total upgrade cost of
$15,000. Additional replacement bulb and ballast costs avoided are another $750 per year. This
ECM represents a campus-wide savings potential of 18,800 kBtu per year, a contribution to the
total savings over the campus of 0.04 kBtu per square foot per year. The net reduction in
atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 1,140 kg/year.
ECM#6 Outdoor Lighting
Cost
$3,750
Reduction
0.15 kBtu/SqFt
Energy Savings
Avoided
$1,660 per year
13,400 kg CO2 per year
21
ECM #7 Gymnasiums and Recreation Center Lighting
Description:
Convert the high-bay Metal Halide lighting to a mix of LED and Fluorescent lighting to greatly
reduce energy consumption and maintenance requirements. At present, the High-Intensity
Discharge (HID) Metal Halide lighting is energized continuously (168 hours per week) to allow use
of the gyms, track, pool and other activity areas, and because HID lights have long warm-up times.
This causes many hours of operation with no occupants. Converting to high-intensity fluorescent
lighting as the source for activity lighting, and using LED lighting for continuous, safe passage and
casual access lighting, would allow gaining as much lights-off time as possible each week to
maximize energy reductions without creating safety, security or warm-up delay concerns. The
two light levels are achieved by installing long-life, low-power LED lighting to supply 10 to 15% of
the full “activity” light levels and operate these lights during the hours the building is occupied.
This reduces the power consumption when each space is unoccupied to 5% of the former
consumption while still allowing students and staff to pass through the spaces safely. For activity
in the space, the higher light levels are created by high-brightness fluorescent arrays that have no
re-strike delay and use one third less power than Metal Halide lighting and operate only while
each space is being used. This saves significant energy costs and will reduce maintenance
intervals as well.
Using the assumption that the existing layout is based on 400W per fixture serving 300 square
feet of space, and replacing each HID fixture with a 150W fluorescent fixture, plus adding a 58W
LED fixture at every fourth location, results in full-brightness power savings averaging 235W per
fixture location. If full brightness is needed 1/3 of the time (saving 250W for 56 hours per week),
and the lower power LED alone is needed the other 2/3 (saving 342W for 112 hr/wk), the power
savings per week per fixture is 52.3 kWh/wk or 2,719 kWh/yr per fixture.
Assuming 1/2 of the Student Center’s total 46,000 square feet is upgradable high-bay this results in
an installed cost of $33,000 and savings in about 80 fixtures of 217,520 kWh per year or 739,568
kBtu/yr. This is a savings of about 1.63 kBtu per square foot per year when spread across the
College as a whole. The consumption cost savings at present rates is $19,315/yr for a breakeven of
1.71 years. The net reduction in atmospheric CO2 from avoided power generation is 151,981
kg/year.
ECM#7 High Bay Lighting
Cost
$33,000
Reduction
1.63 kBtu/SqFt
Energy Savings
Avoided
$19,315 per year
151,981 kg CO2 per year
ECM #8 Update and Expand Digital Control of HVAC
Description:
a. Expand Controls to All Central HVAC Equipment. Existing Automated Logic Controls are
controlling the air handlers, boilers and chillers in most of the classroom buildings, and all central
HVAC equipment not presently controlled by this system (particularly Natural Resources, Holl Lab
and the two new dorms) should be added to gain the energy efficiency and system management
benefits the system allows. Also, the existing controls from 1998 should be upgraded to the latest
software revisions to gain the newest features, and the existing sequences should be expanded to
maximize energy savings by incorporating the latest energy reduction techniques.
22
BUDGET $400k $40k/yr savings
based on installed cost $1.75/sqft x 250,000?? sq ft of classrooms (not dorms, incl zoning)
b. Sequence Improvements.
In our experience, control improvements such as those listed below generally save 3 to 20% of
total energy consumption, with under a 3-year payback. The savings are affected by how well
each control is functioning now, and how aggressively the new sequences can operate based on
original mechanical equipment limitations. Upgrading the central equipment will easily achieve 5%
savings an additional 10% savings can be reached by extending the zoning to all reasonable rooms
and offices. Reaching a 15% savings by aggressively pursuing optimum energy control strategies
for all HVAC should take the savings as high as 60kBtu per square Foot per year.
1) Air handlers in every building are generally equipped with outside air economizers for free
cooling in winter, but it was observed that some units are in need of physical repair, operational
checkout or improved programming. This would improve energy performance.
2) The air handler supply air temperatures and volumes are controlled by the digital systems, but
the supply temperature should be reset in sequence with the needs of all equipment to which air
is being supplied. An aggressive reset schedule would save significant amounts of energy, in fan
horsepower and in supplied heat content.
3) The heating and cooling supply water temperatures are mostly controlled by the digital
systems, but the water temperatures should be reset in sequence with the needs of all equipment
to which water is being supplied. An aggressive reset schedule would save significant amounts of
energy, especially if water temperatures were coordinated with supply air temperature set-points.
c. Expansion to All Rooms and Zones. Existing Automated Logic Controls are controlling the air
handlers in most of the classroom buildings, but the zone controls that supply each room are
digitally controlled and remotely accessible only in Davidson, Public Safety and the Student
Center. Expanding the controls to include control of each room for the other zoned buildings
(Oakley, Light and Natural Resources) would implement coordination of zone requirements with
supplied air and water, allow remote diagnostics and setpoint management by college staff, and
improve comfort while reducing energy consumption. In the buildings not zoned suitably
(particularly Holl Lab, or the three dorms) time of day schedules and temperature monitoring will
allow adjustments to be made to use less energy in these systems. Breakeven is 10 years
ECM#8 Building Automation Improvements
Cost
$400,000
Energy Savings
Reduction
3.39 kBtu/SqFt
Avoided
$40,000 per year
275,000 kg CO2 per year
ECM #9 Variable Speed Conversions
Description:
Many of the air handlers in the zoned buildings are supplying a varying flow of air to the rooms
with the fan volume modulated by a variable frequency drive system and associated sensors,
under the control of the digital control system. The remaining air handlers should be converted
from vortex damper inlet vanes that restrict airflow, to variable frequency drives, to reduce
energy use; for example the Light 3rd floor air handler.
23
Example: Davidson AHU-1, -2 and -3 include two 30 HP and one 20 HP fans. Converting a typical
20 HP fan to variable frequency drives costs about $4,500, and a 30 HP conversion costs $5,000.
Going from inlet vanes to variable speed in a VAV application reduces consumption by 50%. If
these fans operate 20 hours per day, 5 days per week all year, the energy savings for converting a
20 HP fan is:
(20 HP x 0.746 kW/HP x 100 hr/wk x 52 wk/yr x 50%) = 38,792 kWh/yr which is $3,440/yr at today’s
average rate of $0.0888/kWh. Likewise a 30HP conversion saves 58,188 kWh/yr and $5,160/yr. The
total for this building (two 30 HP and one 20 HP fans) costs $14,500 to convert, saves 156,100
kWh/yr or $13,760/yr and has under a two year breakeven, and saves 32,000 kgCO2/yr
It is expected that as many as 8 fans across campus, including the 3 in Davidson in the above
example, are similar candidates for variable speed conversion, and have similar sizes, costs and
operating hours. Based on a total project cost and savings of 2.5 times the Davidson examples,
we can expect a variable speed project cost of $4,000 to save 390,000 kWh/yr (1,326,000 kBtu/yr)
and $34,000/yr and 80,000 kgCO2/yr. Contribution to total campus consumption is
1,326,000 kBtu/yr, which nets 2.94 kBtu/sqft/yr impact.
ECM#9 Variable Speed HVAC (8 fans)
Cost
$45,000
Reduction
2.94 kBtu/SqFt
Energy Savings
Avoided
$34,000 per year
80,000 kg CO2 per year
ECM #10 Upgrade Boilers to High-Efficiency Modulating Types
Description:
Replace one of each pair of Boilers. The usual design practice at the college has been to install
natural gas heating hot water boilers in pairs, one operated as the “Lead Boiler” and one as “Lag
Boiler”. The boiler order may rotate under software control. The existing boilers are primarily
Weil-McLain atmospheric-burner boilers of various sizes, rated for 80% combustion efficiency with
cycling full-fire burners. This situation is found in Shaw, Davidson, Public Safety, Oakley/Light, and
Natural Resources. The boilers are typically sized such that the heating needs of the building
during worst case weather (designed to 0 F. in Ohio) is met by operating the “Lead” boiler, and
the second “Lag” boiler is primarily a ready-to-use backup to assure heat is always available even if
the “Lead” boiler fails to fire.
New boiler technology is available to improve energy consumption significantly. The
improvement comes in two ways: the new burners deliver more energy to the water from a given
quantity of natural gas, and the new burners can keep this efficiency while modulating down to
lower heat output levels. The new boiler combustion efficiency is rated 96% instead of 80%, which
means that even at high fire there is a 20% lower gas consumption for the same hot water
production. At lower firing rates, typical of most hours of the year, the old boiler efficiency was
likely well lower than 70% due to losses of cycling the burner rather than matching the firing rate
to the need. A seasonal savings of 30% lower natural gas for the same delivered heat value is a
reasonable estimate in this application.
To reduce installation costs and therefore shorten the break-even period for this ECM, we
propose that only one boiler of each pair be upgraded at this time to the higher efficiency model,
and that the order of operation be fixed so that the new boiler operates as the “Lead” boiler, with
24
the older boiler left in place as the backup “Lag” boiler. This choice gains the energy benefits
of the new technology nearly all of the time, without adding the cost of standby equipment to the
project cost. The old boilers are of good quality and have been kept in decent condition and
therefore could operate for many more years in this manner.
Replacing the five boilers would cost $130,00. The annual gas consumption total for the five
buildings totaled 42,893 CCF in 2007 and 29,622 CCF in 2008. The average is 36,257 CCF/yr, which is
3,625,700 kBtu/yr. The heating boilers are the dominant gas consumers in these buildings and an
improvement of 30% is a reduction in total gas consumption would amount to 10,877 CCF/yr or
1,087,000 kBtu/yr reduction, which at a market rate of $0.75/CCF represents a cost savings of
$8,157/yr and 223,000 kgCO2/yr. This puts the breakeven point at 16 years. Spread across the
whole campus footprint this represents a reduction of 2.40 kBtu/sqft/yr.
ECM#10 Boiler Upgrades
Cost
$130,000
Reduction
2.40 kBtu/SqFt
Energy Savings
Avoided
$8,157 per year
223,000 kg CO2 per year
ECM #11 Add Solar Hot Water to The Student Center
Description:
The two boilers in this building are high performance models with stepped burners and so are very
efficient when firing. However, the boilers are used for both building heating in winter and
domestic hot water generation year-round. The heating water loop is heated year round to supply
heat exchangers (convertors) for heating the pool, supplying the showers, and for restroom sinks.
The roof over the swimming pool would seem ideally suited by orientation and location to add
solar water heating panels for domestic hot water production in the summer, with a goal of
eliminating the firing of the boilers for several months each year. The solar hot water system
could be piped and valved as an automatic substitute for the boiler water now supplied to just the
domestic hot water convertors located adjacent to the pool, preserving the existing isolation
between the closed, treated hot water loops and the pool or potable water streams. The
required high temperature water to replace boiler water can be supplied by vacuum-tube solar
water heating technology, especially during summer sun, and the system can be designed so that
solar heat gained during the rest of the year can be used to supply a fraction of the heating-side
requirement. Pool heating can be controlled to store all midday solar heat collected and avoid
adding boiler-generated heat at other times. The solar heat produced is predictable for a given
design over the year, and all solar heat can be used and would have otherwise been created by
burning natural gas, so the solar production matches the gas energy saved. In addition, since the
college has a stake in promoting solar technologies, there is significant value in having the Student
Center serve as a real-world example of cost-effective energy reduction through the application of
solar technology.
Installing enough solar heating panels to supply the entire daily domestic hot water needs for the
Recreation Center for the three summer months of 5,000,000 Btu/day would require panels that
cover about 7,500 square feet of the roof, and cost roughly $450,000 to have installed, but would
offset all natural gas presently used in the summer months in this building, or about 4,500 CCF/yr,
and would also offset similar gas consumption the other months of the year for total costs
25
avoided of $18,000/yr with energy breakeven in 25 years. The gas reduction of 13,500 CCF/yr is
equal to 1,350,000 kBtu/yr and saves 277,425 kgCO2/yr. Applied across the campus this is 0.61
kBtu/sqft/yr. Alternately, the installation could be scaled and phased in over time, and students
could perform part of the installation as a class experience, although these options are not
considered beyond this mention.
ECM#11 Solar Water Heating
Cost
$450,000
Reduction
0.61 kBtu/SqFt
Energy Savings
Avoided
$18,000 per year
277,425 kg CO2 per year
Other Potential Energy Conservation Measures
The following ECM’s while un-quantified in terms of KBtu reduction all can have a positive effect
on overall reductions. They should be considered in part or in whole when evaluating the
operations and maintenance practices (O &M), facility repairs, remodeling and cleaning practices.
By implementing as many of these as possible the campus will be able to exceed the mandated
energy reduction goals. Many ECMs have interaction with others and some aspects of these
ECM’s may also be a part of an above-mentioned ECM. For example ECM #9 (Optimizing DayLighting) is part of ECM #2B (Day-Lighting Controls for LeFevre). ECM #16 (Optimize Equipment
Start-Up Time and Sequencing) is included partly in ECM 3# (Building Automation and Controls)
ECM #12 Maintenance Policies and Practices
Description:
Identify upgrades that could be performed during routine maintenance and repairs that will save
energy, and intentionally make energy efficiency a consideration for such repairs or replacement
parts. For example, by mandating that future fluorescent parts orders will only be for T-8 tubes
and electronic ballasts, and by stocking fixture upgrade kits to facilitate conversions at the time of
re-lamping by maintenance personnel, will gradually result in achieving some of the energy
savings being targeted by a comprehensive project. Other, similar maintenance practices and
procedures can be adopted to pay specific attention to energy and avoid inefficient “business as
usual” repair parts procurement. Such policies are most effective and least intrusive if
replacements and stocking are planned in advance rather than waiting until repairs are needed
and time is tight. Consider specifying that specific spares be provided under upgrade contracts to
benefit from quantity pricing and to have spares that match installed models exactly.
ECM #13: Optimizing Day-Lighting
Description:
There are many simple strategies that can enhance day lighting and reduce the need for electric
lights. Good quality daylight is always welcome, but remember that the electric lights must be
dimmed or shut-off in order for day lighting to save energy. The most important strategy for using
daylight is to optimize the lighting quality in the space you want to daylight. Good lighting quality
requires light-colored surfaces and keeping light fixtures, windows, walls and other lightdistributing surfaces clean. The next most important general day-lighting strategy is to control
the light coming though windows. There are many ways to control window daylight and the solar
heat that comes with it:
26
1.
Interior and/or exterior window blinds can prevent glare and channel light toward the
ceiling where it diffuses comfortably into the room. Larger spaces may use automatic controls to
lift and lower the blinds and/or to adjust their vanes.
2.
Window films, which are installed on the inside of single- and double-pane glass, can block
solar heat while admitting visible light.
3.
New varieties of solar heat-blocking roller shades open and close from the window’s
bottom rather than its top. This allows diffused daylight to enter through the window’s top while
solar heat is blocked at the bottom, which is especially helpful for buildings with overhangs that
already block direct sun through the window’s top (Founders Hall, main level, south side).
Skylights bring daylight into the interior of the building but have a more limited application. Not
all roofs and ceilings lend themselves to skylight applications. Any skylight requires excellent
roofing workmanship and a roof surface that can handle the protrusion a skylight creates.
ECM #14: Restroom Demand Recirculation Pumps
Description:
When users have to wait for hot water, both water and energy are wasted. Many commercial
bathrooms employ continuous circulation of hot water – a benefit to users, but a large energy
waster. A better alternative -demand recirculation- can achieve sufficient user satisfaction, energy
savings and water savings. An occupancy sensor in the bathroom activates the circulation pump.
The pump returns the water in the hot water supply pipes to the hot water storage tank and
replaces it with hot water from the tank. The user turns on the faucet and a moment later hot
water is flowing. Combine this demand-recirculation strategy with continuous pipe insulation,
flow restrictors, automatic flow shutoff and a water-temperature setpoint of 120 degrees F, and
the campus will minimize water and energy use for hot water.
ECM #15: Turn Off Electronics and Appliances
Description:
According to the U.S. Department of Energy, office equipment makes up about 16% of a building’s
energy use. Strategies aimed at reducing energy usage include the following:
1.
Install power-management software to control monitors and CPU’s. “Sleep” mode can
reduce energy expenses by up to 50%. The EPA provides free power-management software.
2.
Encourage occupants to turn computers off before they go home. Shutting down one
computer/monitor nightly and on weekends saves up to $80 per year per unit.
3.
Utilize “all-in-one” products. A printer that also serves as a fax machine and copier will
save energy.
4.
Choose office equipment that is ENERGY STAR rated. It’s estimated that an organization
that replaces old equipment with ENERGY STAR equipment will reduce energy consumption by
15% - 30 for that item
ECM #16: Replace Dirty Filters
Description:
Clogged filters reduce airflow, which makes the air-handler work harder to push air through
(which increases energy consumption). Dirty filters can cost up to $5 extra per month per filter.
Strategies aimed at reducing energy usage include the following:
1.
Use filters with static pressure sensors on two sides of the filter. These sensors connect to
the BAS and send an alert when the static pressure rises to a predetermined setpoint OR
27
2.
Use products that measure how hard the fan is working. The motor amps on the blower
are monitored continuously. When they reach a certain point, the sensor sends out a message.
ECM #17: Repair Dripping Faucets
Description:
One hot-water faucet that leaks at a rate of 1 gallon per hour wastes $30 to $120 in energy per
year. A possible solution would be to replace hand-operated controls with touchless sensors.
ECM #18: Unnecessary Vending Machine Cooling and Lighting
Description:
Vending machines use electricity 24/7. Strategies aimed at reducing energy usage include the
following:
1.
If possible, turn off vending machines at night and weekends.
2.
Install motion sensors near machines to keep tab on nearby traffic. The sensors can be
used to lessen cooling when people are scarce. Payback is usually under two years.
ECM #19: Cleaning at Night
Description:
Custodial staff expends energy during off-peak hours when they come in to clean. Strategies
aimed at reducing energy usage include the following:
1.
More cleaning in the daytime (if possible) allows building systems to be turned down
sooner at night OR
2.
Have custodial staff move throughout the building as a team, cleaning one floor at a time
and turning on and off lights as they go.
ECM #20: Optimize Equipment Start-Up Time and Sequencing
Description:
According to the EPA, if each piece of equipment in your facility is starting up at 8 AM, your peak
demand will be much higher than if equipment starts up sequentially at 7:45 AM. Strategies aimed
at reducing energy usage include the following:
1.
Bring equipment online throughout a period of about 30 minutes or so. Test different
options to figure out latest possible start-up times. Do the same thing when it comes to powering
down equipment.
2.
Control the amount of outdoor air being brought into spaces using CO2 sensors. The
payback time can be extremely short.
ECM #21: Properly Locate Thermostats
Description:
Direct sunlight, drafts, vents, people walking by, space heaters and fans, etc. all affect thermostat
readings, calling for more heating and cooling when it’s not needed. We recommend conducting
a thermostat audit and relocate as necessary.
ECM #22: Exhaust Fans
Description:
Most exhaust fans are designed to run 24/7. Strategies aimed at reducing energy usage include
the following:
28
1.
AM).
2.
3.
Turn down the exhaust volume for certain periods of time (between 10:30 PM and 6
Make sure the corresponding amount of intake air is also being reduced.
Connect restroom exhaust fans to occupancy sensors.
Verify that exhaust fans are not running at speeds higher than necessary.
ECM #23: Uncover Vents, Grills, Etc.
Description:
Furniture placed in front of vents blocks airflow. Conduct a space audit and move
furniture/equipment. If not possible, then move the vent.
Alternative and Renewable Energy
Historical trends and future predictions indicate the demand for energy will continue to rise.
Higher prices, reduced supplies, along with stricter federal guidelines for coal emissions,
necessitate a shift from traditional energy sources towards increased reliance on alternative
energy. Alternative energy is produced from renewable sources such as fuel cell, solar energy, biofuels and wind power.
The college intends to take the lead in developing leaders, experts and professionals in what will
undoubtedly become a fast-growing, high-demand industry.
Production of Natural Gas
Approximately 50% of the natural gas consumed on the main campus of the College is produced
on site from wells that were tapped in the 1980’s when gas prices were at a historic high. One of
those wells is still producing a good reliable supply. Another one of the existing wells is not
producing much at the moment. This well could be evaluated for the possibility of re-drilling and
taking it deeper. The possibility of drilling a new well is also an option.
Over the course of the next year the college is going to be exploring the potential for increasing
the gas produced on-site. If Hocking College can increase production and reduce consumption
through improvements in boiler systems and HVAC systems, it seems feasible that the College
could produce enough gas to become self-reliant on main campus.
Geothermal - Ground Water Sourced Heating and Cooling
The Earth’s heat is continuously radiated from within, and each year rainfall and snowmelt supply
new water to geothermal reservoirs. Production from an individual geothermal well can be
sustained for decades and perhaps centuries. The U.S. Department of Energy classifies
geothermal energy as renewable. By using geothermal for heating and cooling the use of fossil
fuels is adverted and the carbon footprint is much smaller. Ohio is a good part of the country for
using geothermal for both heating and cooling. Hocking College plans on utilizing this source of
energy any time it is practical and cost effective. This applies to both new construction and
renovations.
Solar Power
The photovoltaic industry has achieved impressive improvements in solar cell efficiencies and
significant cost reductions. Photovoltaic cells today can achieve efficiencies between 12 and 20
percent, well above what they were just 15 years ago. The price of photovoltaic panels has
29
declined from $100/watt in the 1970s to the current price of approximately $3.00/watt. The
global photovoltaic industry is expanding rapidly; global manufacturing of solar cells stood at 58
megawatts (58,000,000 watts) per year in 1992 and has risen to over 1,600 megawatts
(1,600,000,000 watts) per year in 2005 - an increase of almost 30% per annum over the past 15
years. Analysts believe that the photovoltaic industry will continue to see impressive gains in
efficiencies and cost reductions as economies of scale come into play with larger production
facilities. As the economics for solar power improves Hocking College will include solar power as
an energy resource.
Wind turbine
Wind-powered electric systems, as an industry has, experienced major growth in the past decade.
These turbines, which are defined as 100 kilowatts in capacity and below, have seen their market
grow significantly and the industry has set ambitious growth targets. The U.S. is the leading world
producer of small wind turbines, the vast majority of which are manufactured on U.S. soil. Wind
power is very competitive with solar photovoltaic (PV), biomass, and diesel generators.
Although small wind systems involve a significant initial investment, they can be competitive with
conventional energy sources when you account for a lifetime of reduced or altogether avoided
utility costs, especially considering escalating fuel costs.
The cost of buying and installing a small wind energy system typically ranges from about $3,0005,000 per kilowatt for a grid-connected installation, less than half the cost of a similar solar electric
system. The economics of a wind system are very sensitive to the average wind speed in the area,
and to a lesser extent, the cost of purchasing electricity. As a general rule of thumb a turbine
needs to have at least a 10-mph average wind speed and the electric costs of at least 10 cents/kWh
for electricity. On average Ohio has under 10-mph wind speed, so the feasibility of installing wind
turbine will need to wait until the costs come down.
Campus-Wide Support
Student and Staff Involvement
Hocking College will engage the students and staff to participate in energy conservation on
campus. Some simple practices that will significantly impact the use of electricity and heating for
the college are as follows:
1. Turning off lights whenever a room is not in use.
2. Turning off computer monitors when leaving for a considerable amount of time.
3. Closing blinds at the end of the day.
4. Discontinuing use of portable space heaters.
5. Turning off printers and copiers when not in use.
6. Closing the fume hoods to minimum levels whenever possible.
As an example of the impact student involvement can have on an energy conservation program,
an inter-dorm energy-conservation competition was held at Dartmouth College and the winner
reduced their building's energy use by 15 percent.
The truth of the matter is, that day-to-day energy conservation is easy, even for us busy college
students. Reductions in energy use, even ones that may seem trivial, are one of the simplest ways
for individuals to take direct responsibility for their environment. Flying out the door to get to
30
class? Hit the lights on your way out -- it only takes a second. Is winter weather giving you the
chills? Think about throwing on a sweater instead of dialing up the heat. Hocking College will be
continuously promoting energy conservation that is good not only for the campus, but also a
positive global impact, which is a growing concern for everyone.
Facilities Energy Committee
The committee will be charged with always keeping in mind our energy savings goals.
The facilities energy committee is comprised of engineers and technicians with different
expertise, who meet regularly to go over building schedules, and make sure everything is running
at optimal efficiency. Watching outside temperatures, they manage a reset schedule for the water
supply temperature, thus keeping the heating supply temperature at a point that will keep the
building warm, yet save energy. The facility staff constantly monitors building temperatures to
maintain an optimum comfort level as well as conserve energy. This committee also suggests
reviews, and implements energy savings projects.
Utility Awareness Plan
The college is committed to ensuring that our staff and students are aware of, and actively
participate in, utility conservation and management measures. As part of our Utility Awareness
Plan, Hocking College will provide basic energy conservation guidelines throughout each year,
particularly preceding holiday breaks when conservation can be maximized. In addition the
college has its own in house facilities management program that oversees the daily operations of
all facilities. They will routinely tour facilities to ensure safe and effective environments. They still
promptly report water leaks, lighting issues, temperature problems or other facility issues to the
facilities office. The program will maintain a reporting log to ensure resolution of maintenance
issues.
Communications
Educational program that promote personal involvement, generates additional savings over and
above those derived from technological efficiencies. The program enhances the college’s
environmental stewardship by using a holistic approach to energy efficiency and conservation.
When used in conjunction with energy projects, the awareness program maximizes acceptance
and satisfaction with newly installed building retrofits. The program also fosters a conservation
climate, which spawns additional conservation activities and pro-environmental opportunities.
Communication is very important. Methods of communication include a regular newsletter and
signage that helps educate (and encourages participation of) students and staff about the energy
programs and features in their building. Simple informational signs can communicate
accomplishments, and the benefits to students and staff. Compelling case studies and success
stories are also effective tools in encouraging participation. Campus communications media and
meetings will be used to publicize energy policy energy awareness, the benefits of energy and
water conservation, and how individuals can participate in these conservation measures.
Campus Operating Guidelines (Policy)
Hocking College will develop comprehensive operating guidelines that will spell out operating
parameters ranging from space temperature set points to operating schedules. The guidelines
will not only address HVAC operation, but also lighting levels and operation. This guideline will be
adopted by the board and will give the facility staff the opportunity to manage the buildings, staff,
31
and students to a common agreed upon standard. Development of the “Operating
Guidelines,” will be done in conjunction with the HB-7 project described at the end of this plan.
The following is a sample:
When the cooling season is reached, areas will be scheduled as follows:









Between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 10 p.m., Monday through Friday, and 8 a.m. and 6 p.m.
Saturday, classrooms will be scheduled for air conditioning.
Between the hours of 7:30 a.m. and 6 p.m., Monday through Friday, office spaces will be
scheduled for air conditioning.
The Library shall be scheduled for air conditioning, one hour prior to its posted opening
and one hour after its posted closing.
Campus air conditioning systems should be scheduled to be turned off during college
holidays.
Those areas with events occurring shall be scheduled through a request to the facility
department.
The systems shall be powered up at 4 hours prior to a return from an extended vacation
period.
The main computer room is excluded from this policy.
Campus air conditioning systems shall be set to maintain a setpoint of 75 degrees
Fahrenheit in all occupied spaces.
During unoccupied periods, outside air dampers shall be closed and the setpoint shall be
84 degrees Fahrenheit.
Summary
The recommendations provided to the College by Aleron, Inc. in their Energy Conservation Plan
directly address our desire to become more efficient in our scope 2 emission sources in addition to
numerous other positive outcomes for the College. Hocking College intends to aggressively
implement the first ten (10) ECMs within the next 2 years. Funding for these projects will be a
combination of in-house monies, State of Ohio funding opportunities and grants. ECM eleven (11)
and other alternative energy projects will follow as grants and partnerships with both public and
private organizations continue to develop. We plan on reducing our carbon footprint by at least
2000 MTCO2e within the next ten years through these initiatives.
32
Mitigation Strategies
Land Management Plan
This is a comprehensive plan to manage all of our lands as responsible land use stewards.
We will be seeking to have our plan accredited through the Sustainable Forestry Initiative (SFI). To
date, only three other colleges or universities have achieved this distinction, North Carolina State,
University of Washington and Yale University. Hocking College will be the fourth soon. The idea of
seeking certification for our developing land management plan (LMP) came from a faculty and
student proposal to the administration. This is an important point, as the full implementation of
this plan will require considerable and perpetual involvement from our faculty and students
through class projects. As mentioned in the introduction, this is where the strength of our School
of Natural Resources is fully recognized.
The SFI certification is a holistic plan for an ecosystem, not solely focused on the trees. It
involves planning for forest management, wildlife habitat, hydrology, geology, archaeology,
recreation, biodiversity, controlling invasive species, landscaping and education. The twenty (20)
objectives for SFI certification compliment our education goals as well as our Sustainability goals.
Hocking College owns nearly 2,500 acres of forested land that is primarily used as an
educational laboratory. Given the size of our School of Natural Resources combined with our
propensity to deliver hands-on education, class activity in the field is often hectic. The LMP will
help us coordinate our educational activities to minimize project conflicts.
The region of Southeast Ohio that Hocking College is situated in has a long history of land
abuse. Centuries of timber harvesting combined with over a hundred years of coal mining have
left their mark on the landscape. This is evident on the forested property of Hocking College. This
includes streams polluted with acid mine drainage, varied forest stand successions, erosion
problems and sprawling invasive species. Despite these concerns, the forested lands can become
a vibrant ecosystem in a relatively short period of time through sound land management
practices. Development of the LMP began in January of 2010.
This land management plan will also help us achieve the goal of carbon neutrality. Once we
have implemented our plan, we will be able to count our forested acreage as positive carbon
offsets. The average ratio in Ohio is a range of 2.5 -4.5 Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide equivalency
(MTCO2) per acre. The higher part of that range is typically for lands with sound land management
practices. Our nearly 2500 acres of forested land throughout all of our properties gives us a rather
unique opportunity to create a large carbon sink on our own property. We realize that equating
acreage to MTCO2e is not a direct reduction in the college’s footprint. However, as we develop
our forested lands into a healthier ecosystem, it will have a positive effect on future GHG
inventories. We hope that by the year 2020 that our forested lands will contribute a reduction of
ca. 6,000 MTCO2e.
33
Future Mitigation Strategies
This final section of our plan will outline strategies that we may develop in the second
stage in our overall plan to achieve carbon neutrality. These ideas include projects that need more
development time, funding allocations and in some cases, suitable partners. Once we have our
first two primary initiatives underway, the energy conservation measures and the land
management plan; we will then shift to exploring the following potential strategies. This process
will be updated annually in our progress reports.
Energy
1. Expand our solar energy collection throughout all of our institution. In most cases, it is
financially prudent to only install the amount of photovoltaic panels to compensate for the
amount of energy used so that the end result is balanced. However, if funding and or
partnerships allow, we may want to consider literally blanketing our buildings with solar
panels to maximize renewable energy credits that we can use to offset our footprint. We
will be in a better position to evaluate this concept once we complete ECM #11 which
involves a large solar array on top of our student center to help cover the costs of heating
our swimming pool.
2. Explore partnership opportunities with American Electric Power (AEP). The combination of
our Logan Energy institute and student projects with AEP’s need to generate more
renewable energy could create a symbiotic partnership. Preliminary discussions have
already begun.
3. Explore retrofitting campus facilities to utilize geothermal heating. Cost will be a challenge,
but this option would work on our properties. If geothermal heating is feasible, once
combined with our own natural gas, the College may be able to dramatically reduce its
heating bills and emissions.
4. Wind power could be installed at our Lake Snowden recreational facility in Albany, Ohio.
While wind power is not considered viable in many parts of SE Ohio, the area of Albany
with its higher elevation and rolling topography does lend itself to this notion. The Lake
Snowden park office, Sauber Educational Center that hosts our Archaeology program, and
our fish hatchery at Lake Snowden, all could benefit from wind power.
5. Consider implementing a small student fee, $1 per credit, to invest in Green Tags or
Renewable Energy Credits (REC). This is a concept that many other institutions have tried
and seems to be effective. This would allow the College to invest in the production of new
renewable energy in Ohio and considerably offset our scope 2 emissions. It should be
considered along with student leadership and even allow students to vote on the idea. This
approach could be another partnership opportunity with AEP.
Transportation
1. Implement annual parking fees for all employees and students. While this idea may not be
the most popular at the College, we must address the largest contributor to our carbon
footprint, commuting. This will involve numerous strategies, all requiring funding. Parking
34
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
fess could support these new strategies. Parking fees themselves could also act as a
deterrent for some thereby reducing vehicles coming to campus.
Two fees are proposed, one for a green permit for vehicles that have ca.30 mpg or higher.
The green permit will be at a reduced cost and have more favorable parking spots. The
other permit, red, will cost more and require the permit holder to park farther from most
buildings. It is proposed that this fee apply to all students with only the red fee applying to
employees. Employees with vehicles deserving of the green permit will receive them for
free. Upon acquiring any permit, we will collect data on the individual’s vehicle and
commuting habits to use in our ongoing GHG reports.
Install plug-in locations for electric cars. This trend will increase over the next few years,
maybe even dramatically. These locations will be free to all who can use them. They should
be solar powered thereby creating a financial and emission free mode of travel to the
College.
Encourage more bike usage for the campus community. Landscaped rest stops and
additional bike racks along our new extended bike path would be a positive contribution.
Create some kind of incentive for students who ride a bike to campus versus driving.
Develop a bike share program for students. We currently have a large number of bikes that
have either been confiscated by campus police or abandoned by students sitting in one of
our shelter houses. These bikes could be repaired and cleaned up to create an initial
inventory for student use. Students could show their ID to check out a bike for a period of
time at no cost, albeit the student is responsible for any damage to the bike in their care.
This would give students who do not have the money to purchase a bike the opportunity
to commute to campus without paying for gas to creating emissions.
Audit our aging fleet of vehicles for a cost analysis of repairing them versus replacement.
This fleet includes cars for typical day-to-day business, vans for class field trips and school
buses for field trips. All of these vehicles get heavy usage, especially the vans and buses.
Our technicians do a great job keeping them running, but many of these vehicles are on
their last leg. It may be time to look at replacement. If so, we would want to strongly
consider new vehicles that maximize new alternative energy technology.
Develop a public transport system for students. The vehicle, a van or bus, could be electric
powered using plug in stations at three primary stops, Logan, Nelsonville and Lake
Snowden. This initiative would involve costs for the vehicle, upkeep and personnel to drive
it, hence more justification for the parking fee system. This is a plan that we must find a
solution for as it has the best potential to make the biggest impact on our student
commuter emissions.
Waste Management
1. Create a new recycling and reuse facility on our main campus. This facility would consist of
a pole building structure, perhaps 50’x75’, compactors and storage space for recyclable
materials and space to temporarily store usable equipment to redistribute throughout the
campus. This would allow us to significantly reduce our waste flow to landfills creating cost
savings, good campus stewardship and a small emissions reduction.
2. Seek grant funding to acquire a food waste compactor to process food waste from our
food services, Inn and culinary program. This waste could be mixed with the waste
generated from our equine programs, horse manure and sawdust from stall cleaning, to
create compost. The compost in itself can be counted as a carbon offset as well as be used
35
in our landscape management program on campus. This goal along with our goal of
utilizing more local food sources (part of our institutional Sustainability Plan, not included
in the CAP report) would essentially complete the cycle for our food production,
consumption and disposal.
Carbon Offsets
1. Simply purchasing carbon credits from an entity such as the Chicago Climate Exchange is
an option that at this initial point of planning we will keep on the table. However, it is a last
resort that we will exercise only if we exhaust all other options. This option appears to be
nothing more than paying a fine to cover our sins. While this approach is effective in a
technical sense, we want our time, energy and money used to achieve carbon neutrality to
have multiple positive outcomes for our campus community as we think that most of our
proposed plans will accomplish. Furthermore, we want our effort to embody what we
believe is a core concept of Sustainability – Keep it local!
2. Expand our land management strategy beyond our campus. We would like to offer land
management planning to private landowners and/or businesses in Southeast Ohio with 50
acres or more. In exchange for our services, which also would create projects for a variety
of Natural Resources classes, we would gain ownership of the offset credits. The
landowner gets a free, or very inexpensive, land management plan, students get a great
real world experience, the College reduces its carbon footprint and the community gains
more healthy forests.
3. Expand goal #2 mentioned just above to undesirable or reclaimed mine lands that need
either aforestation or reforestation planning. If we compare this idea with that of
purchasing carbon credits, it would be a far better investment of College dollars to take the
same amount of money to invest in land that we would manage. This would create
significant new carbon offsets through new forests, more locations for educational
activities and ownership of the land itself versus a piece of paper denoting our credits
purchased. This idea could also be another option to engage some of our partners in the
region.
36
Conclusion
The challenge of transforming our campus into a sustainable system that eliminates green
house gas emissions is just that, a challenge. Many other colleges and universities, nearly 700 now,
are also facing the same challenge. The approaches to these challenges are as varied as the
institutions supporting them. This comes as no surprise as the role of higher of education in this
country is far more than just meeting the educational needs of its students. American colleges and
universities are not afraid to explore new challenges; in fact they embrace the opportunity.
Business and industry will explore transformational change only when the economy,
market opportunity or consumers are the driving forces. Quite frankly, we cannot wait for that
process to evolve; our window of opportunity to minimize climatic change that will negatively
effect our way of life on this planet is dwindling. Higher education must lead the way now,
developing new sustainable approaches to business and life that others can follow. It is obvious
that Hocking College is not the only institution that shares this sentiment as demonstrated by the
growing number of members in the American College and University Presidents’ Climate
Commitment.
The recent development of our Office of Sustainability at Hocking College is just the
beginning of our long-term goals within the broad field of sustainability. There are three major
planning efforts underway involving sustainability at our College, the ACUPCC plan, the land
management plan and the master plan for sustainability. The first two plans have been discussed
in this report. The master plan will involve many initiatives that may not necessarily involve a
reduction in our carbon footprint, but they will directly support our sustainability mission:
“Living, working and learning in an environment that we commit to maintain and improve for
future generations“. This involves incorporating sustainability into all of our curricula, wherever
appropriate so that all of our graduates will leave Hocking College viewing sustainability not as a
new concept, rather as an approach to living. It involves changing operational systems to support
local and sustainable business. The plan also includes campus changes that will positively effect
the work environment of our employees.
One of the exciting parts of this growing new office is how the three planning initiatives
are beginning to gravitate toward each other. The projects and goals of each plan seem to
overlap on a more frequent basis creating a more singular approach.
37
We are optimistic about our ability to achieve the goals set forth by this commitment.
The unique assets of Hocking College discussed in the introduction of this document, the positive
support from the College administration and our planning strategies breed such optimism. It is for
these reasons that we have decided to take a practical approach to this commitment rather than
the more obscure approach of saying our institution will become climate neutral by 2050. Instead,
we have set the goal of reducing our carbon footprint 40% by 2020. This percentage and date are
based on specific plans that are already set in motion and are even considered conservative by our
calculations. Additionally, there are many unknown variables in the near future that could either
complicate or simplify our plans. These include state and federal economies and their effect on
supporting public higher education, new technology in alternative energy and the effectiveness of
our initial plans. We will adapt to new challenges and seize opportunities within our plan as they
develop through future progress reports.
The staff, faculty, and students of Hocking College are thrilled that their institution has
made the commitment to become a member of the American College and University Presidents’
Climate Commitment. We aspire to not only meet the goals of this commitment, but to become a
nationally recognized example of a sustainable campus.