TOWARDS A MORE SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS:
A Menu of Specific Options for the University of Maryland
Environmental Policy Workshop
School of Public Policy
University of Maryland
June 2009
[This page intentionall y left bla nk]
2
PREFACE
This report was prepared by the policy analysis workshop at the School of Public Policy of the
University of Maryland. The policy analysis workshop is a course in the master’s program of the
School. Each student devotes a full semester of course work to the study of an important public
policy issue. This year there were six masters students with undergraduate majors ranging from
film studies to political science to civil engineering.
The combined efforts of the students amounted to more than 750 hours, including review of the
sustainability literature, review of the sustainability efforts of other universities, meetings with
College Park officials dealing with sustainability issues, and other methods of inquiry. The
report was prepared in consultation with the University of Maryland Office of Sustainability.
The Office of Sustainability does not necessarily agree with each recommendation developed in
the report. Professor Robert H. Nelson of the environmental policy program of the School of
Public Policy supervises the environmental section of the policy analysis workshop.
The report develops a menu of possible specific concrete steps to improve the sustainability of
the College Park campus. For each possible step, a short memo is presented that provides a
description of the following:
Current Status on Campus
Best Practices at other Universities and other Institutions
Alternatives
Costs/Issues
Recommendations
These 38 memos will be made available to top administrators of the University for their
consideration. They are assembled here in one document to provide a broader picture of a full
set of sustainability actions available at present to the University. There are admittedly many
other steps that could be taken to advance the sustainability of the College Park campus. They
could not all be examined, however, within the limits of time and resources available to the
environmental policy workshop.
The memos are organized according to the following areas of University operations:
1. Energy Efficiency
2. Stormwater
3. Lawns and Landscaping
4. Transportation
5. Dining and Other Student Services
The Executive Summary presents the principal recommendations. The Executive Summary and
the full report are available on the web under “Faculty Papers” and “Robert Nelson” at
www.publicpolicy.umd.edu.
3
Contributing Students
Laurel Ball
John Coggin
Christina Heshmatpour
Mike Lancaster
Joanna Mauer
Sean Williamson
4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 7
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 15
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY .......................... 25
MEMO 1: Green Purchasing .................................................................................................... 27
MEMO 2: Copy Paper .............................................................................................................. 29
MEMO 3: Green Cleaning ........................................................................................................ 32
MEMO 4: Endowment Transparency ....................................................................................... 34
MEMO 5: Green Investing ....................................................................................................... 36
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY ................................ 39
MEMO 6: Dorm Electricity Use Competition .......................................................................... 41
MEMO 7: Sustainability Dorm Competition ............................................................................ 44
MEMO 8: Occupancy Lighting Sensors ................................................................................... 47
MEMO 9: Smart Meters ........................................................................................................... 49
MEMO 10: Fume Hoods .......................................................................................................... 52
MEMO 11: “Solar Power” for Clothes Drying......................................................................... 54
MEMO 12: Geothermal Heat Pumps ........................................................................................ 57
MEMO 13: Energy Performance Contracting .......................................................................... 60
MEMO 14: State Budgetary Treatment of Energy Saving Investments................................... 63
MEMO 15: Renewable Energy Certificates ............................................................................ 66
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR STORMWATER............................................. 69
MEMO 16: Impervious Surfaces .............................................................................................. 71
MEMO 17: Green Infrastructure .............................................................................................. 74
MEMO 18: Rain Barrels ........................................................................................................... 76
MEMO 19: Construction Site Stormwater Management……………………………………...78
MEMO 20: Selling Water Quality Credits ............................................................................... 80
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR LAWNS AND LANDSCAPING ................... 83
MEMO 21: Low-Mow Meadows ............................................................................................. 85
MEMO 22: Low-Maintenance Grasses .................................................................................... 88
MEMO 23: Low-Carbon Landscaping ..................................................................................... 90
MEMO 24: Reclaimed Water ................................................................................................... 92
MEMO 25: Biochar .................................................................................................................. 94
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION ..................................... 97
MEMO 26: Student Transit Fare Discounts ............................................................................. 99
MEMO 27: Student Parking ................................................................................................... 102
MEMO 28: Bus Washing....................................................................................................... 105
MEMO 29: Traffic Alternatives for Campus Drive ............................................................... 107
MEMO 30: Hybrid Buses ....................................................................................................... 109
MEMO 31: Offsetting and/or Limiting Airline Travel ........................................................... 112
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR DINING AND OTHER STUDENT
SERVICES .................................................................................................................................. 115
MEMO 32: Bagasse Pricing and Procurement ....................................................................... 117
MEMO 33: Campus Composting ........................................................................................... 120
MEMO 34: Catering Waste .................................................................................................... 125
MEMO 35: Biodiesel .............................................................................................................. 128
5
MEMO 36: Bottled Water ...................................................................................................... 131
MEMO 37: Plastic Bags ......................................................................................................... 134
MEMO 38: Local Food Procurement ..................................................................................... 136
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. Green Purchasing
The Department of Procurement and Supply should make green purchasing a priority by
negotiating lower prices for “green” products; ensuring that green purchasing policies are
reflected in Master Contracts; including a specific green purchasing component in training for
University procurement card holders; and closely track purchases to foster green accountability.
2. Copy Paper
The Department of Procurement and Supply should eliminate 100% virgin copy paper from
Master Contracts and seek to negotiate a price for 30% post-consumer content paper that is at
least as low as prices for virgin paper that departments could procure elsewhere. A competitive
price for recycled paper should be included as a key factor in the selection of University paper
suppliers. Double sided printing should become the routine practice at the University, including
making it the default setting on university printers. Where existing printers do not have the
capacity for double sided printing, the University should develop a program for gradually
phasing them out.
3. Green Cleaning
Facilities Management should continue progress towards achieving GS-42 standards with the
specific goal of obtaining certification within 3-5 years, regularly reporting progress towards this
goal, and also seek to negotiate lower prices for “green” cleaning products.
4. Endowment Transparency
The University of Maryland’s College Park Foundation should work towards publishing a list of
University endowment holdings and shareholder voting records on its website, making this
information available to the University community and general public.
5. Green Investing
The College Park Foundation should assess the social and environmental impacts of its current
investment strategies by examining the business practices of the companies that the University
currently invests in, identifying which holdings are compatible with the University’s values, and
which holdings may not be compatible with the University’s principles, and formulating
investment goals that maximize returns while maintaining social responsibility.
6. Dorm Electricity Use Competition
The University of Maryland should form a pilot dorm competition program, in which students
try to achieve the largest energy use reductions, to teach students about conservation while
simultaneously saving university resources and building its status as a green campus.
7. Sustainability Dorm Competition
The University of Maryland should form a pilot broader sustainability competition, in which
dorms compete in achieving a wide variety of environmental sustainability goals, in order to help
students develop sustainable habits while saving money and resources for the university and
enhancing the university's sustainability profile.
7
8. Occupancy Lighting Sensors
The University should expand existing efforts to install energy-saving lighting occupancy
sensors across campus and explore potential financing options including the State Energy Loan
Program and creating an internal revolving loan fund for this purpose. An education program
should be established across the University to communicate the cost savings likely to result from
wider use of occupancy sensors. Financial incentives should be established to encourage
university divisions to explore the feasibility of and to request occupancy sensors in their
buildings.
9. Smart Meters
The University of Maryland should select a building to serve as a pilot project for smart meter
installation and supplement this program by purchasing watt-hour meters, also monitoring
energy use to measure the success of these measures and raise energy awareness across the
University. Smart meters would allow the University to reexamine its budgetary procedures for
energy consumption. Each University department or division might be given a quota of a
“sustainable” level of energy consumption, tailored to is specific circumstances. The energy cost
of this quota would be paid centrally. Use of electricity above the quota might be charged
directly to the relevant University department or division. Use of electricity below the quota
might generate a money rebate that would be distributed to the relevant University department or
division.
10. Fume Hoods
The University should conduct an inventory of all fume hoods on campus, evaluate the potential
to reduce fume hood energy use, and develop informational strategies to reduce fume hood
energy use.
11. “Solar Power” for Clothes Drying
The university should implement a robust clothes drying program using indoor (and possibly
outdoor) clothes lines and the energy of the sun, covering appropriate student dorms and laundry
rooms, that achieves the goal of reducing student electric power consumption for clothes drying
at a savings to the university, beginning with a survey to assess students’ willingness to
participate and a pilot program in a few dorms to gauge actual participation.
12. Geothermal Heat Pumps
The University should conduct a design study to determine the feasibility of installing
geothermal systems on campus and consider installing a geothermal system in one new building
as a pilot project.
13. Energy Performance Contracting
The University should facilitate a substantial expansion of the use of energy performance
contracts to reduce energy use by clarifying budget issues related to the University’s
implementation of performance contracts. An explicit understanding of the financial
8
arrangements for energy performance contracts should be worked out with the State Department
of Budget and Management.
14. State Budgetary Treatment of Energy Saving Investments
The University should work with state officials to establish state budgetary procedures that more
strongly encourage the University to make energy efficiency investments. Where the University
takes actions that result in long run energy cost savings to the University and the state, the
financial benefits should accrue at least in part to the University, enabling it to fund other
programs more generously.
15. Renewable Energy Certificates
UMD should follow through with its Renewable Energy Credit (REC) clean energy purchasing
plan, thereby supporting nearby wind projects in West Virginia and Pennsylvania via REC
investments. RECs should be certified by the nationally recognized certification organization,
Green-E. The University should be sure that REC purchases result in actual increases in
renewable energy production above what would be a reasonable baseline estimate.
16. Impervious Surfaces
UMD’s Facility Council should consider creating an impervious surface policy for new
construction on campus and address impervious surfaces in its next master plan. This might
include a no-net-increase-policy – a decision not to allow any future net increases in impervious
surfaces on the campus. Newly created impervious surfaces would then have to be accompanied
by “offsets” elsewhere that reduced existing impervious surfaces on the campus.
17. Green Infrastructure
Facilities Management and the Facilities Council should consider adopting stormwater policies
and supporting implementation mechanisms that limit stormwater flows through the installation
of various forms of green infrastructure, including rain barrels, green roofs, and rain gardens.
18. Rain Barrels
The University should hold a student design contest to develop rain barrels compatible with
University architectural standards and other aesthetic considerations and undertake an
experimental program of installing suitably designed rain barrels and accompanying watering
systems in a select set of campus buildings.
19. Construction Site Stormwater Management
The University should undertake a pilot project to examine the efficacy of new and possibly
improved methods of controlling stormwater runoff at construction sites.
20. Selling Water Quality Credits
The University of Maryland’s faculty expertise in water quality trading should be tapped by
Facilities Management to help to develop a program for selling water quality credits under the
new State of Maryland water trading program. The University should make a public statement
that it is willing and actively looking to generate and sell water quality credits.
9
21. Low-Mow Meadows
The University of Maryland should consider a trial program for creating new low-mow areas of
campus in order to save university resources and minimize the university's environmental
impact. Some appropriate areas could be mowed less frequently and others might be left
unmowed altogether and converted to meadows that would serve to retain stormwater and other
sustainability purposes.
22. Low Maintenance Grasses
The University of Maryland should consider an experimental program to convert a small area of
campus lawns to low maintenance grasses. Under this program, facilities staff could examine of
the best species to plant, the resource savings possible, and the views of the campus community
with respect to the aesthetic and other consequences of such a change.
23. Low-Carbon Landscaping
The Department of Building and Landscape Services should reduce the emissions and other
environmental impacts generated by landscaping operations by procuring less polluting and more
energy efficient equipment and evaluating whether current gas-powered landscaping equipment
is necessary in every case.
24. Reclaimed Water
Following the example of other campuses, the University should examine the possibilities for a
water reclamation system that would increase the retention of and level of reuse of University
water consumption, potentially reducing water bills and achieving net cost savings.
25. Biochar
Given its major potential sustainability benefits as a fertilizer, biochar deserves further study by
UMD, potentially via an experimental plot by the plant sciences department. In particular, the
prospect of using chicken waste—given the surplus of this leading Bay pollutant on the Eastern
Shore—is inviting as a raw material for biochar.
26. Student Transit Fare Discounts
The University should reenter negotiations with WMATA seeking to negotiate an arrangement
that would make Metro rail and bus service available to UMD students on the same discounted
terms that WMATA at present offers to senior citizens (half fare on rail and 50 cents on buses).
The University should also seek to negotiate a reduced student price for Metrobus passes that
would cover a full semester (such passes are currently available for $11 per week and allow
unlimited free Metro use during the week -- but on buses only). The University should
contribute some of its own funds to make such bus passes available to students for a full
semester at a low cost – perhaps $50 per semester per student.
10
27. Student Parking
The University should review its pricing and other parking policies to make them more
sustainable. Parking fees should be used as a policy instrument to alter faculty and student
behavior to serve the University’s environmental objectives. Student parking fees should be
raised to levels more commensurate with the marginal costs to the University of providing
parking facilities, including the environmental costs of student commuting. In place of oncampus parking, satellite lots should be constructed at locations off the campus to provide long
term parking for those students living on campus who have a car. If fewer cars are parked on
campus, some parking lots should be returned to lawns and meadows. The University should
reduce single-occupant commuting to the campus by implementing a “Non-Commuter Zone”
based on proximity to campus and shuttle routes. On-campus parking permits would not be
issued to students living in this zone. The assumption that automobiles should provide the basic
means of transportation for most students should be revisited – in conjunction with changes in
other transportation policies to enhance non-automotive options.
28. Bus Washing
The East Campus redevelopment plan presents a timely opportunity to improve the efficiency of
the university's bus washing systems. A new bus washing facility should be constructed in order
to reduce the university's water consumption and the amount of time and money spent on
cleaning all types of university vehicles.
29. Traffic Alternatives for Campus Drive
A series of experiments should be conducted during the school year in which days are set aside
to test the possible effects of limiting traffic on Campus Drive. On those days, varying distances
of the street could be blocked off to car traffic in order to determine how the campus community
might be affected by the resulting changes in traffic flow.
30. Hybrid Buses
The University of Maryland should invest in one or two hybrid buses in order to gain experience
with this new technology and judge its potential for lowering the emissions and fuel use of
Shuttle UM.
31. Offsetting and/or Limiting Airline Travel
The University should contact Amtrak and Orbitz to seek to negotiate a University discount to
encourage rail travel along the Northeast corridor. The University should also begin discussions
with their contracted travel agents to see if an agreement can be reached to receive rebates on
ticket purchases that would go to purchasing carbon offsets. If not, when these contracts are up,
the University should look to find a travel agent that will cover offsets. Since the University
does not require travel to be arranged through these agents, it should also collect a carbon offset
surcharge on all University reimbursed tickets not purchased through the travel agent.
32. Bagasse Pricing and Procurement
Dining Services should take steps to increase the cost-effectiveness of bagasse procurement by
exploring a take-out container price increase and expanding the Eat Initiative. Availability of
compost bins should also be addressed to ensure that bagasse can be composted easily
throughout campus.
33. Campus Composting
Expanding food-waste composting capacity by purchasing pulpers would allow more food waste
to be composted at the University in a sanitary manner. Dining Services could recoup the cost of
pulpers and related expenditures by waste disposal savings and selling its food waste to a
composting facility.
34. Catering Waste
Dining Services should reduce catering waste by revising the Goodies-to-Go order form and
tableware policy so that customers specify which tableware items they want and pay per item, as
well as expanding the use of biodegradable tableware.
35. Biodiesel
Facilities Management should purchase biodiesel production equipment and partner with
Biodiesel University or the Green Guild Biodiesel group to train employees and students to make
biodiesel from cooking grease. Biodiesel produced in-house could be used in campus
lawnmowers, converted diesel vehicles, and the cogeneration plant. The University should
explore possibilities for partnering with the Town of College Park for the purpose of establishing
a joint biodiesel facility that could also serve Town restaurants.
36. Bottled Water
Dining Services should reexamine its contract with Pepsi to determine options that are available
for reducing and eliminating bottled water sales and to ensure that a new contract does not lock
the University into an agreement to stock and sell bottled water. As bottled water is phased out
of cafes, convenience stores, and the Stamp Student Union food court, water filtration devices
should be installed, allowing customers to dispense water into reusable bottles or use a cup.
37. Plastic Bags
The Book Center should commit to significantly reducing the use of plastic bags by expanding
on its recent decision to sell reusable bags, training checkout staff to ask customers whether they
would like a bag, and instituting an informational campaign across the campus.
38. Local Food Procurement
Dining Services should seek to expand its use of local food. This might include holding special
local food events to increase student awareness and acceptance.
12
Top Recommendations: (selected for feasibility and potential wide scope of impact)











No. 2 – Copy Paper
No. 4 -- Endowment Transparency
No. 6 -- Dorm Electricity Use Competition
No. 9 -- Smart Meters
No. 10 -- Fume Hoods
No. 13 – Funding of Energy Performance Contracting
No. 14 – State Budgetary Treatment of Energy Saving Investments
No. 21 -- Low Mow Meadow Creation
No. 28 – Bus Washing
No. 31 – Offsetting or Limiting Airplane Travel
No. 33 – Campus Composting
Low-Hanging Fruit: (selected for low cost, no requirements for outside approval, few
administrative constraints, and quick payback)









No. 4 – Endowment Transparency
No. 3 -- Dorm Electricity Use Competition
No. 8 – Occupancy Lighting sensors
No. 10 – Fume Hoods
No. 11 – Use of “Solar Power” for Clothes Drying
No. 18 – Rain Barrels
No. 34 -- Catering Waste
No. 37 -- Plastic Bags at the University Book Center
No. 38 -- Local Food Procurement by Dining Services
13
[This page intentionally left blank]
14
INTRODUCTION
The University of Maryland Strategic Plan, adopted in 2008, states that “The University of
Maryland will be widely recognized as a national model for a Green University. In ten years
time, the University will have made substantial progress toward addressing energy issues.” The
Plan states that the University will “slash” energy use, expand “green spaces,” “dramatically”
reduce its carbon footprint, and build and retrofit buildings according to “strict environmental
standards.” In May 2007, President Dan Mote joined more than 500 other university presidents
in signing the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment, pledging to
reduce campus greenhouse gas emissions and to work to achieve carbon neutrality at the
University. In these and in other ways, the University of Maryland has made a commitment to
review all aspects of its operations with the goal of improving environmental sustainability and
performance.
Translating this goal into a set of concrete actions will not be easy. It will require that many
university employees reexamine and alter their familiar ways of doing things. Budgets will have
to be developed to provide the necessary funding for investments in energy efficiency, reduced
stormwater flows, new transportation options, and other steps to improve campus sustainability.
University staff will have to be trained to build sustainability considerations into their routine
decision making. Campus officials will have to follow up on the general strategic commitment
to become a green university with a range of specific policy and administrative actions.
Making progress towards a more sustainable campus thus is not an environmental issue alone.
Sustainability requires consideration of economic, administrative, budgetary, and many other
matters. A sustainable set of actions for the University campus must be compatible with these
other areas of major University concern. There may be opportunities, moreover, to achieve
gains in these other areas along with the environmental improvements sought. The pursuit of
sustainability creates a new agent for change throughout the operations of the University. It
offers the opportunity to review familiar ways of doing things in economic, administrative, and
other domains -- and to assess whether the old ways still make sense in light of altered current
conditions and circumstances, including a newly enhanced concern for the environmental
performance of the campus.
Lessons from a Private Business Example
It is sometimes suggested that sustainability requires actions that will be costly to an
organization. This skepticism is being routinely refuted, however, with more and more examples
from the private business sector. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on an example of a
Subaru automobile plant in Indiana. As the Journal commented, “for years, it was the
conventional wisdom: If you improved quality, costs would also rise. But then companies
discovered the opposite was true. By redesigning processes – reducing mistakes, doing things
right the first time – companies could provide better products and services and cut their costs.”
The same lesson was now being learned with respect to making businesses more sustainable.
“Now its time to learn this lesson all over again, as it applies to going green.” This was
illustrated by an auto plant that showed how “re-engineering processes with green principles and
15
greater efficiency in mind can not only improve a company’s standing with nature, but increase
its profits and give it a competitive advantage as well.”1
This common experience offers a commentary on the character of modern bureaucracy in most
large organizations. The organizations may be innovative in their infancy but often settle into
conventional ways of doing things. They commonly are slow to adopt new and better
technology, to perceive new market opportunities and to respond to many other changing
conditions and circumstances. It is only when some outside force – the requirement to keep up
with new competitors, or now the demands of society for more sustainable practices – arises that
the organization undertakes a comprehensive review of its operations. When such a review is
undertaken, and when top management puts its full authority behind the effort, many new and
more efficient – and more sustainable – ways of doing things are often found. As the Wall Street
Journal reported, “with employees at every level of the plant looking for ways to save energy,
reduce waste, and generally make processes more efficient, one measure of its success is a 14 %
reduction in electricity consumption on a per-car basis since 2000. An even bigger achievement:
It has not shipped any waste to a landfill since May 2004.”2
At the beginning it was almost easy as “many of the Subaru plant’s early green initiatives
delivered quick paybacks and required little effort: dimming assembly-line lights automatically
when the workers took breaks, for example, or plugging leaks in compressed-air lines, or
recycling more materials.” Other changes took longer – a decade or more in some cases to fully
explore, refine, and implement -- but also eventually yielded significant reductions in energy and
materials inputs and waste outputs. A key to it all was the full commitment and involvement of
top management. As the Journal reported, “management’s leadership is vital in setting goals and
getting departments,” each of whom may have different ways of doing things, and may be
jealous of its own prerogatives, “to cooperate” fully.
Consider an idea that originated with a worker in engine assembly at the Subaru plant.
The idea: to return packaging material to a supplier for reuse. Engine assembly couldn’t
do this on its own. Engineering needed to certify that the material could be reused.
Purchasing had to renegotiate with the supplier. Transportation and logistics dealt with
how the materials would be returned, and accounting looked at budget and control
ramifications.
Without clear signals from above pushing for such cooperation, progress will
quickly bog down.3
Some other lessons from business experience are that it is important to involve the workers on
the ground. They are the ones who know the details of organizational operations and how
improvements might be made. The workers also need to know that their suggestions will be
heard – and that rewards in salary or other respects may be forthcoming for valuable ideas.
Subaru discovered that it was also desirable to become closely involved with suppliers because
they played such a central role in many aspects of the production process. For example, a
Alan G. Robinson and Dean M. Schroeder, “Greener and Cheaper: The Conventional Wisdom is that a
Company’s Costs Rise as its Environmental Impact Falls. Think Again.” Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2009.
2
Ibid.
3
Ibid.
1
16
Japanese supplier had long sent engine parts in Styrofoam blocks that were recycled in Indiana.
On further consideration, Subaru found that, since the containers with the engine parts had to be
returned to Japan anyway, it was feasible to send the Styrofoam back to Japan where it could
often be reused.
As compared with a private company such as Subaru, a public university such as the University
of Maryland faces a more complex operating environment. The University’s total budget, for
example, is not set by top management (consulting with a board of directors) but by officials in
Annapolis. For some actions, departmental faculties may be required to give their approval.
Contracting in the public sector often involves more rigid rules and procedures that do not apply
to private companies.
The following lessons can be drawn from private business experience for sustainability at
the University of Maryland.
1. The top management of the University will have to make a strong and clear
commitment to sustainability that is reflected in close personal attention and a willingness to
reward lower level officials, and to resolve difficulties that may arise.
2. Much as businesses must work with their suppliers, the University must work with its
suppliers such as energy companies, paper sources, and many others.
3. Campus sustainability will require that other public officials in Annapolis, the
municipality of College Park, and elsewhere join in the effort. In Annapolis, the governor and
legislature may have an important role to play in altering traditional practices that now limit
efforts to make the University of Maryland more sustainable.
4. It is important to communicate the high priority of sustainability to faculty, staff,
students and other parts of the university community – including appropriate rewards for those
who make outstanding contributions. Many of the most important ideas for sustainability will
originate at the bottom of the University organization.
5. Sustainability is not only an environmental objective. Truly sustainable actions must
serve the economic, administrative, budgetary, and other needs of the university, and fit over the
long run within the constraints that such needs impose.
Past Sustainability Actions
This report draws upon and seeks to build from a wider set of plans and action that have already
been taken to improve the environmental sustainability of the University of Maryland. The
University has already taken a variety of steps, beginning as early as 2003, towards achieving a
more sustainable campus. The Environmental Stewardship Committee, formed in 2003,
developed campus Environmental Stewardship Guidelines that were adopted by the Facilities
Council in 2005. These guidelines included goals encompassing all aspects of environmental
stewardship from air quality to water quality to environmental purchase preference to curriculum
development. The goals and objectives gave the University an important starting point,
17
encouraging a variety of groups throughout the campus to determine tangible changes that could
be implemented in order to attain these goals. These groups include the Facilities Council,
Environmental Stewardship Committee, Facilities Management, Environmental Safety,
Procurement and Supply, Business Services, Transportation Services, University Human
Resources, Colleges, Schools and other University departments and programs, and University
faculty, staff, and students.
The changes have already had a significant impact on behavior, environmental awareness and
energy savings across the campus. For example, the recipient of the EPA’s 2005 Energy Star
Award, the University’s Combined Heat and Power Plant, was completed in 2003. The system
produces the steam required for the heating and part of the cooling for the University. It can
produce up to 90 percent of the University’s winter electric demand and around 50 percent of the
summer demand. A thermal energy storage system cools water at night and stores it for daytime
cooling of three UMD buildings. Lighting across campus is being updated to higher efficiency
lamps and the number of lamps is being reduced in some areas. New carbon dioxide monitors are
being installed to ventilate buildings only when necessary.
Hallways across campus now use 80 percent less energy than they did before a campus-wide
lighting retrofit project started in spring 2008. The Hallway Lighting Project replaced existing T8
fluorescent light fixtures with new T5 volumetric light fixtures and reduced lighting levels to
those specified by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. This combination of
using energy efficient fixtures and reducing lighting to sufficient levels will save approximately
6,600 Megawatt hours of electricity and 5,200 tons of CO2 emissions each year.
The Maryland Board of Public Works approved a $20 million contract with Johnson Controls to
purchase and install efficient electrical, mechanical and plumbing equipment. The State of
Maryland has provided a financing mechanism for such projects -- called “energy performance
contracts” (ESCOs). The project is designed to save 22 percent of the energy usage in the
buildings involved and to generate operational savings of $1.7 million dollars each year. That
translates into savings of 4,100 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The contract will address
lighting; water use; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); building envelope; and
building automation controls.
The campus recycling rate increased from 17 percent in 2003 to 54 percent in 2008. The "Feed
the Turtle" program introduced recycling and composting to home football games during the fall
2008 season. Some campus departments have adopted sustainability guidelines that include
minimum standards for purchasing recycled paper and other environmentally preferable
activities. The Department of Environmental Safety has helped faculty and staff reduce
hazardous waste and create safer laboratories. All cleaning products used by Residential
Facilities are Green Seal Certified. Facilities Management uses some Green Seal products in
academic and administrative buildings.
New construction and major renovations must meet LEED-Silver green building standards of the
U.S. Green Building Council. Knight Hall will be the first LEED-rated building that is owned
and operated by the University on the College Park campus. Since December 2007, the entire
campus has been certified as an Arboretum and Botanical Garden. The Golf Course is a certified
Audubon International Wildlife Sanctuary.
18
The University continues to search for other ways to improve campus sustainability and to
determine innovative ways to decrease greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet the targets
which were agreed upon in 2007 by President Mote. Some of the recent steps include:

In April 2007, University students voted to increase student fees by $12 per year to fund the
purchase of clean, renewable energy. This fee will be collected beginning in the fall of 2009.

In July 2007, the Office of Sustainability was established to coordinate the University's
participation in the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment and to
otherwise advance sustainability efforts campus-wide.

Students from each of the University System of Maryland (USM) institutions formed the
Maryland Student Climate Coalition in the fall of 2007, and created the Environmental
Sustainability and Climate Change Initiative, a set of practices, programs and policies to guide
the whole System.

In June 2008, the University released its first inventory of campus greenhouse gas emissions
covering 2002-2007 emissions.

The Climate Action Plan Work Group is developing emissions reduction strategies to achieve
carbon neutrality by 2050. A Draft Action Plan was issued in April 2009. The Climate Action
Plan is scheduled to be finalized by September 2009.

The University has made formal commitments to a Green Building Policy, greater provision
of Public Transportation, and Waste Minimization.

More than 100 environmental courses are offered at the University each year. Outside the
classroom, students can learn about issues by building sustainable homes, living in an eco
community, or participating in a variety of events.
Other Universities
Many other universities have made a similar commitment to sustainability. The University of
Maryland should study and may be able to learn from their examples.
Arizona State University:
Energy Conservation: To reduce heat loss a boiler blow down heat recovery system was
installed and exposed steam/hot water piping was insulated. A solar photovoltaic carport
covering forty two parking spaces satisfies daytime lighting requirements for lighting in the
garage.
Waste Management: Trees at ASU produce a variety of fruits and herbs such as
rosemary, bay leaf, and basil. To reduce its solid waste volume, ASU is working to implement
the Campus-Grown Foods Program to harvest these edible foods. The University Club uses some
of the citrus and herbs, and opportunities to locate other buyers for campus-grown produce are
being explored. The Recycling Program demanufactures electronics and recycles batteries, toner
and ink cartridges, cell phones, and even shoes. ASU Mail Services has partnered with the
Ecological Mail Coalition to help reduce each department´s junk mail.
Community Involvement: ASU will offer a Serving Sustainability to Sun Devils Award
for restaurants and other food services near the campus that commit to reducing food and
packaging waste, increasing energy and water efficiency, and incorporating sustainability into
their service.
19
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Community Involvement: UNC and the town of Chapel Hill became the first town-gown
partners in the country to sign the Community Carbon Reduction Pledge, committing the
university and surrounding community to a 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by
2050.
Student Activism: The solar hot water system on top of the renovated Morrison
Residence Hall is the first project funded by the Student Green Energy Fee. Residential Green
Games is an environmental competition among residence halls to stimulate energy and water
conservation, reduce the amount of trash generated while increasing recycling, and promote
student awareness of campus sustainability initiatives.
Water Conservation: UNC is committing $5 million to a reclaimed water system that will
divert treated effluent from the Mason Farm Sewage Treatment Plant for non-potable reuse on
campus. It will replace approximately 180 million gallons of potable water per year used in the
operation of the University’s central chiller plant cooling towers. The vehicle wash bay captures
and processes gray water and reuses it to wash vehicles. Toilets have been renovated with dualflush valves that reduce the water used per flush by up to 31 percent.
University of California, Berkeley
Energy Conservation: UC-Berkeley installed solar panels on the available roof space of
campus buildings to generate solar energy.
Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) – The campus is greening its electricity supply by
making an investment in green power credits, also known as Renewable Energy Credits.
Carbon Offsets – The purchase of carbon offsets reduces net carbon emissions through
arrangements with a carbon-offset provider specializing in projects off-campus that retire or
capture carbon from the atmosphere.
Transportation: UC-Berkeley is introducing fleet biking and expanding its electric
vehicle fleet through existing/new vendor contracts to replace a subset of the campus fleet. It will
assign a “carbon fee” to parking permits. Funds from this fee collection will go to greenhouse
gas reduction projects on campus.
Waste Management: The Bargain Barn seeks to reuse items that may otherwise be
thrown away. The Bargain Barn offers office furniture, computers, lab equipment, and many
other items that are no longer being used by campus students and faculty.
University of Florida:
Energy Conservation: The University is installing Vending Misers that power down a
vending machine when the area surrounding it is unoccupied and automatically repowers the
vending machine when the area is reoccupied. A Vending Miser will reduce the power
consumption of a cold drink vending machine by an average of 46%. The Vending Miser
automatically powers up the vending machine to ensure that the vended product stays cold.
University of Washington –
Energy conservation: The University is removing elevator motor-generator sets and
electromechanical relays and controls and replacing them with computer logic controls and solidstate drives, thus providing immediate reductions in electricity usage. Many of the older motors
used electricity even when they weren’t in operation.
Waste Reduction: 350 ‘Smart Cans’ were strategically placed in high traffic areas around
the campus. These 36-gallon stainless-steel receptacles feature a lower portion for litter and an
20
upper chamber for recycling cans, glass and plastic bottles. The unique upper repository is
clearly identified and has a convenient spring-loaded trap door to allow for easy access and
servicing. The UW has been donating approximately 55 pounds of food a day to Food Lifeline
since the University’s involvement with the non-profit food-distribution organization began in
1999. The food is transported to one of 25 meal programs in King County.
Selected Other Universities
Carbon Offsets: The Universities of Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Iowa, and Michigan State
University have joined the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), North America’s only legally
binding greenhouse gas (GHG) emission registry, reduction and trading system. In joining, these
institutions have committed to either reducing their GHG emissions each year beginning in 2003,
or to buying carbon offsets from another party to bring them into compliance with CCX’s
membership terms. As member institutions continue to lower their emissions, they may benefit
from the sale of their emission allowances through CCX.
Green Funds: The Harvard University Green Campus Initiative makes $12 million
available to a green campus loan fund for sustainability initiatives and projects. Units of the
campus apply for funds and pay them back from their own budgets, thus operating outside the
conventional university budgeting system. More than $7 million has been invested in 110
projects. The energy efficiency and other projects achieved a simple payback of three years on
average and a return on investment of 33 percent.
Waste Reduction: The University of Florida–Gainesville set a goal of zero waste by
2015. The UF Green Team network will develop strategies for reduction of consumption and
waste. http://www.sustainable.ufl.edu/greenteam/reuse.html
Energy conservation: Amherst College purchases enough renewable energy credits to
offset the emissions from student computer use. Some residence facilities have solar hot water
systems. Bates College is using a B5 biodiesel blend to heat some campus residences. At
Columbia University, installation of 54 low-flow fume hoods saves the equivalent of five gallons
of home heating oil per hour when the outside temperature is 15 F. Over the course of a year,
their environmental benefit is a 4.6 million-pound reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.
Food & Recycling: Dalhousie University dining halls have adopted a trayless policy to
conserve water, heating energy, and food waste. At the University of San Francisco, clothes,
furniture, and art supplies are donated to local nonprofit distribution centers, and food waste is
given to homeless shelters.
Student Activism: Rutgers Energy Institute is holding a contest to engage students in the
development of a plan for Rutgers to become carbon neutral by 2030. The Institute is offering
four prizes of $2500 each to undergraduate students or teams who submit the best ideas to reduce
the University's carbon dioxide emissions. Students are to develop implementable plans that
contain an analysis of costs and energy savings, a timeline for implementation, suggestions for
how the plan can be implemented, and how the costs and energy savings were calculated. In the
state of Minnesota, fourteen colleges and universities are holding an intercampus energy
conservation competition called "Campus Wars." Campuses compete to see who can achieve the
greatest percent reduction in campus energy use as compared to the campus' average energy
consumption over the previous three Februarys. Berkshire School has implemented a global
warming pollution emissions trading system between dorms to both help reduce global warming
pollution and educate the student body.
21
Transportation: St. Olaf College Green Machine Bicycle Program collects and recycles
used and discarded bikes for students to use on campus.
Water conservation: The College of Marin is replacing 40 standard urinals with a
waterless model that will save an estimated 2.5 million gallons of water next year
Green Preferred Purchasing: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville has become the
first university in the US to be certified for its green cleaning practices. The certification granted
by Green Seal -- known as GS-42 -- applies to the seven buildings on the UT campus that are
cleaned by UT personnel. The certification requires that UT take steps to make the cleaning
process more efficient, including communication with clients and effective equipment
maintenance. In addition, all products used in the cleaning process must be environmentally
friendly.
Sustainability Rankings
Reflecting the growing interest in campus sustainability, various rankings of different
universities are now available.
In August 2007 the University of Maryland was rated (with Harvard, Yale and Tufts, the only
other top-ranked large American universities) as one of the top 15 “green” universities by Grist
Magazine, an online environmental journal. Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley
were listed among the “runners-up” of universities whose practices were reviewed by Grist.
The most widely publicized review, covering 300 universities, and including an examination of
43 separate sustainability indicators on each campus is the “College Sustainability Report Card.”
Surveys in 2008 were sent to each university, as conducted by the Sustainable Endowments
Institute, funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and six other foundations. The 43 indicators
fall in 9 broad categories, including (1) “administration,” (2) “climate change and energy,” (3)
“food and recycling,” (4) “green building,” (5) “student involvement,” and (6) “transportation.”
Reflecting the sponsorship of this effort by the Sustainable Endowments Institute, the other three
categories relate to the financial operations of each university – (7) “endowment transparency,”
(8) “investment priorities,” and (9) “shareholder engagement.” Grades from A to F are assigned
to each university for each of the 9 categories.
In the latest report card released in April 2009, the University of Maryland received a grade of Bwhich put it in 82nd place overall in the rankings. This reflects in significant part the poor grades
that the university receives in the three financial categories relating to endowment transparency
and investment policies. In other respects the University does considerably better, receiving the
following grades: administration, A; climate change and energy, B; food and recycling, B; green
building, C; student involvement, A; and transportation, A.
For purposes of comparison, the following tables show the top 15 universities in the Sustainable
Endowment Institute’s rankings, the grades of the five aspirational peers of the University of
Maryland, and the grades of fellow ACC schools.
22
Top 15 Universities as Ranked for Sustainability
1. Oberlin College – A2. University of New Hampshire – A3. University of British Columbia – A4. Columbia University – A5. Dickinson College – A6. Harvard University – A7. Middlebury College – A8. University of Washington – A9. Brown University – A10. Carleton College – A11. University of Colorado – A12. Dartmouth College – A13. University of Pennsylvania – A14. Stanford University – A15. University of Vermont – ASustainability Grades of UMD and Its Aspirational Peers
University of California, Berkeley -- B
University of California, Los Angeles – BUniversity of Maryland – BUniversity of Michigan – B
University of Minnesota – B+
University of North Carolina – B+
Sustainability Grades of ACC Schools
Boston College – BClemson -- B
Duke – B+
Florida State University – CGeorgia Tech – B
Miami – C+
North Carolina State – C+
University of Maryland – BUniversity of North Carolina – B+
University of Virginia -- B
Virginia Tech – BWake Forest – CThe University of Maryland could significantly improve its Sustainable Endowments Institute
ranking by altering its policies relating to endowment transparency and financial investments
(see memo Number 4). There are also a number of other rankings. The Princeton Review
23
provides a sustainability ranking based in part on responses of current students and intended
primarily for potential students at universities around the United States.
Plan of the Report
The remainder of this report provides a menu of possible specific concrete steps to improve the
sustainability of the College Park campus. For each possible step, a short memo is presented that
provides a description of the following:
Current Status on Campus
Best Practices at other Universities and other Institutions
Alternatives
Costs/Issues
Recommendations
The memos are organized according to the following areas of University operations:
1. Energy Efficiency
2. Stormwater
3. Lawns and Landscaping
4. Transportation
5. Dining and Other Student Services
24
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILIT Y OPTIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY
25
[This page intentionally left blank]
26
MEMO 1: Green Purchasing
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Green Purchasing
Current Status on Campus
The University procures about $400 million worth of goods and services each year including
materials for new construction and renovations.4 The University has developed a draft
environmentally preferable procurement policy to promote sustainability and reduce carbon
emissions. The policy states that requisitions submitted to the Department of Procurement and
Supply should include a statement identifying the environmentally preferable alternatives
considered and the “green” features included in the goods or services requested. The policy is
currently an appendix to the Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP).5
There are three processes for procurement based on the value of the purchase. Purchases less
than $5,000 can be made without seeking competition. There are more than 1,700 credit card
holders across campus that can make these purchases, and over 150,000 transactions are made
each year through this method for a value of about $60 million. For purchases greater than
$5,000 but less than $100,000, an informal bidding process must take place. Finally,
procurement for materials and services with a value greater than $100,000 must go through a
formal bidding process. Master Contracts are an exception to the normal procurement processes.
Master Contracts, which provide departments with lower-cost procurement options, are
developed with suppliers through a competitive procurement process. Individual departments
are able to purchase goods and services included in the Master Contracts directly from the
contract vendor, and this policy applies to contracts of any dollar value.6
Best Practices
Rutgers’ Purchasing Department has a long history of green purchasing. Rutgers’ strategies
include making a continuous effort to drive down costs of “green” products; tracking purchases;
communicating strategies to procurement decision makers; requesting that suppliers share
information about their efforts to promote sustainability and new “green” products they are
offering; and hiring interns to talk with departments about products and purchasing.7 Rutgers
has also extended its green purchasing initiative to include the surrounding community by
establishing a Green Purchasing Cooperative Program.8
Alternatives
4
Stirling, J. Personal Interview. 12 Mar. 2009.
University of Maryland. http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/UMD_CAP_Draft.pdf
6
Stirling, J. Personal Interview. 12 Mar. 2009.
7
Lyons, K. Personal Interview. 21 Apr. 2009.
8
U.S. 1 Newspaper. http://www.princetoninfo.com/index.php?option=com_us1more&Itemid=6&key=07-072009%20Rutgers
5
27
The Department of Procurement and Supply at the University of Maryland could make a strong
effort to negotiate lower prices for specific “green” products to the point that there is no price
premium. The Department could also work to ensure that green purchasing policies are reflected
in Master Contracts. For example, the University could consider only including recycled paper
with at least 30 percent post-consumer content while making sure that the prices are as lower as
possible for virgin paper.
The Department could begin to develop accountability mechanisms for green purchasing by
clearly identifying which products are considered “green” and developing a comprehensive
method for tracking purchases. The University could adopt best practices in this area from
Rutgers, which has extensive experience in tracking purchases.
The Department could also make an effort to improve communication with University
procurement card holders about green purchasing options. This could include a list on the
procurement website of “green” products included in specific Master Contracts. In addition,
University training for procurement card holders could include a specific green purchasing
component that explains the environmentally preferable procurement policy and options for
green purchasing.
Costs/Issues
Cost can be a significant hurdle to increasing green purchasing due to the cost premium that
“green” products sometimes carry. Due to budget constraints, individual departments often have
no choice but to try to find the lowest price for all purchases. Another hurdle is that budget
authority for the University is decentralized, and it is difficult to mandate procurement policies,
given the number of actors involved. In addition, the procurement of “green” products is only
one of several goals of the Department of Procurement and Supply, which include supporting
small businesses and minority businesses.
Recommendations
The Department of Procurement and Supply should make green purchasing a priority by seeking
to negotiate lower prices for “green” products; ensuring that green purchasing policies are
reflected in Master Contracts; and including a specific green purchasing component in training
for University procurement card holders. The Department should also develop a comprehensive
method for tracking purchases, which would contribute to developing accountability mechanisms
for green purchasing.
28
MEMO 2: Copy Paper
To: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Copy Paper
Issue Description and Current Status on Campus
The environmental impact from the production, use and disposal of copy paper purchased in
2008 by the University of Maryland’s Department of Procurement is estimated to be the
equivalent of: 1,586 tons of wood removed from forests; 19 million BTU’s of total energy used;
2.8 million pounds CO2 equivalent in greenhouse gasses emitted; 9.4 million gallons of
wastewater used; and 1.1 million pounds of solid waste created.1
By recycling paper, the fiber extraction and bleaching stages of virgin paper production are
eliminated. Recycling also diverts paper from the solid waste stream, which in turn reduces
methane gas release from landfills. Recycling can also help control the disposal of toxic wastes
such as heavy metals in the inks on discarded papers that would otherwise end up in landfills or
incinerators.
The University has developed a draft environmentally preferable procurement policy to promote
sustainability and reduce carbon emissions. The draft policy states that the University’s goal is
to procure 100% of its general purpose office paper from Forest Stewardship Council (FSC)
certified sources, having a minimum of 30% post-consumer recycled material content.
Although paper described as “100% post-consumer recycled fiber” contains - by definition - no
virgin fiber, FSC provides a certification for this type of paper as well. It is important to seek
FSC certified product, even when procuring paper comprised of 100% recycled content, because
FSC actually audits and traces the recycled content sources through the chain of custody.
Manufacturers of paper which claim to have 100% recycled content, but which do not carry the
FSC certification, often can not verify the content source through the entire chain of custody.
By improving its policies relating to the procurement and consumption of copy paper, the
University may have opportunities to reduce this environmental impact and to demonstrate
leadership in environmental stewardship which may inspire change at other universities and
organizations.
A summary of the volume, cost and composition of copy paper procured by the Department of
Procurement and Supply, for the Administrative, Academic, and Student Affairs offices in 2008
is as follows2:
1
Environmental impact estimates were made using the Environmental Defense Fund Paper Calculator. For more
information visit http://www.papercalculator.org.
2
Kustin, M. Personal Communication. Apr.2009. According to the Department of Procurement and Supply, this
data represents all copy paper product that they procured from Office Max and Rudolph’s and represents
approximately 99% of the copy paper purchases for the Administrative, Academic and Student Affairs offices; the
100% Virgin
FSC 30%
Recycled
% of
% of
Reams Total Reams Total
125,906 60% 81,420 39%
FSC 50%
Recycled
% of
Reams Total
100
<1%
FSC 100%
Recycled
% of
Reams Total
1,825
1%
Total
Reams
209,251
Cost
$721,000
Best Practices
Princeton University’s paper purchasing policy, established in 2004, requires that all academic
departments purchase 100% post-consumer recycled waste paper. Princeton’s switch to 100%
recycled paper involved negotiating a significant reduction in cost with Boise Office Solutions;
dispelling misperceptions among Princeton faculty and staff of recycled paper being of inferior
quality; and developing a strategy to encourage all departments to switch to 100% recycled
paper.3 The University conducted blind tests of 100 percent versus 30 percent recycled paper to
make sure there was no difference in performance and now uses Boise Aspen 100% paper. At
the time of the switch in 2004, the University negotiated a contract with Boise so that the
recycled paper was only 40 cents more per case than the least expensive virgin paper in use.4
Princeton’s experiences suggests that, by making commitments to high volume purchases of
100% recycled paper, significant cost discounts can be negotiated from paper suppliers.
Alternatives
Assuming the draft environmentally preferable procurement policy is officially adopted, the
Department of Procurement and Supply could attempt to change University behavior by
measuring and publicizing changes in recycled paper purchases over time. The Department
could establish tracking systems to report publicly (perhaps on a web site) on paper purchases by
individual academic and administrative departments.
An alternative would be to complement the purchasing policy by eliminating 100% virgin paper
from Master Contracts altogether. For this to be successful, it would be important to negotiate a
price for 30% post-consumer recycled paper that is at least as low as the price for virgin paper
that departments could procure elsewhere.
The Department of Procurement and Supply could set a goal that all copy paper purchased by the
University be FSC certified 100% recycled content within five years. As part of this strategy, the
Department could strive to negotiate significantly lower prices for 100% recycled paper.
1% omitted represents a small number of purchases made through other vendors by individuals, using the University
“p-card”. Data for these additional purchases is not available. This volume represents only a subset of the total paper
procured by the University, in that the Department of Business Services procures its own paper for use in the
University’s Copy Centers and the Printing Center; procurement data for this department was not available and is
beyond the scope of this analysis.
3
Greening Princeton. http://www.princeton.edu/~greening/paper.html
4
Princeton Weekly Bulletin. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/0322/2b.shtml
30
Costs/Issues
At present, the UMD master contract pricing for copy paper (Office Max & Rudolph’s) is as
follows:
100% Virgin
$32.75
FSC 30% Recycled
$34.75
FSC 50% Recycled
$41.60
FSC 100% Recycled
$42.81
Note: Price shown is per carton; one carton = 10 reams.
Due to budget constraints and Department of Procurement and Supply guidelines which seek to
purchase at least cost, regardless of environmental impact, departments at the University
typically use cost as the primary determinant for paper procurement decisions. The current paper
supplier may offer the lowest prices for virgin paper which may then commit the University to
higher prices for recycled paper (as compared with other suppliers). Changes in University
paper procurement and bidding practices thus may be necessary to increase recycled paper
content. Prices of recycled paper would need to enter in a significant way into paper supplier
decisions.
Recommendations
The Department of Procurement and Supply should eliminate 100% virgin copy paper from
Master Contracts and negotiate a price for 30% post-consumer content paper that is at least as
low as prices for virgin paper that departments could procure elsewhere. The Department of
Procurement and Supply should also regularly report on paper purchases by individual academic
and administrative departments and set a goal that all copy paper purchased by the University be
FSC certified 100% post-consumer recycled content within five years.
The University could also seek to reduce the total volume of copy paper. One way to do this is
by double sided printing. The University should set a policy that printers should be set to
double sided printing as the default. Where existing printers do not have the capacity for double
sided printing, the University should develop a program to replace them.
31
MEMO 3: Green Cleaning
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Green Cleaning
Current Status on Campus
Green Seal is an independent, nonprofit organization that sets environmental standards for
product categories and certifies products and organizations that meet those standards.5 Green
Seal’s GS-42 certification is a comprehensive standard for cleaning services that encompasses all
indoor activities typically required to clean commercial, public, and industrial buildings. In
addition to requiring environmentally preferable cleaning products and supplies, the certification
also includes components such as reducing chemical and solid waste, standards for vacuum use
and floor care, and communication and employee training.6 Green cleaning practices can reduce
the environmental impact of cleaning products, improve the health of cleaning staff and building
occupants, and result in cost savings.
Green Seal products currently used by Facilities Management (FM) include soap, bathroom
tissue, paper towels, and all cleaning chemicals except disinfectants and aerosol cleaners. Green
Seal floor strippers and floor finish are currently being evaluated in a test phase. FM has plans to
phase out aerosol cleaners; convert to Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI)-certified equipment; and
convert to microfiber cleaning cloths. Items for which acceptable “green” alternatives have not
yet been found include deodorizers, drain cleaners, tile and grout cleaners, gum remover and
furniture polish.7
The University recently signed a new contract with Daycon Products Co., Inc. for cleaning
products for all academic and administrative buildings. Daycon is installing chemical dilution
systems in housekeeping closets, which limits employee exposure to chemicals and ensures that
the proper amounts of chemicals are used.8
Best Practices
The University of Tennessee, Knoxville became the first university in the U.S. to obtain a Green
Seal GS-42 certification.9 Facilities Maintenance Operations at Harvard University is pursuing a
GS-42 certification. The GS-42 standards are being used as a guide for cleaning services, and all
custodians are trained by the Green Seal organization in green cleaning procedures and the GS42 specification. Harvard has developed a comprehensive guide for green cleaning practices
5
Green Seal. (2009). About Green Seal. http://www.greenseal.org/about/index.cfm
Green Seal. (2006). GS-42 Green Seal Environmental Standard for Cleaning Services.
http://www.greenseal.org/certification/cleaning_services_gs_42.pdf
7
Dykes, S. Personal Communication. 15 Apr. 2009.
8
Dykes, S. Personal Interview. 19 Mar. 2009.
9
University of Tennessee. (2007). UT Certified as America’s First Green Cleaning University.
http://www.utk.edu/news/article.php?id=4370
6
32
including specifications for cleaning chemicals, floor care systems, wipers and dusters, vacuums,
hand soap, paper products, and plastic bags.10 According to a publication of Rutgers University,
custodial workers took 12 percent fewer sick days in the year after switching to green cleaning
products.11
Alternatives
FM could work with Daycon to continue its transition to Green Seal products and cleaning
practices without specifically pursuing a GS-42 certification. An alternative would be to pursue
a GS-42 certification within 3-5 years. A GS-42 certification would make the University a
leader in green cleaning practices and could serve as an important component of the University’s
sustainability efforts.
Either approach could include working with the Department of Procurement and Supply to
negotiate lower prices for any “green” products that are significantly more expensive than
products currently in use. One potential product would be “green” polyliners (trashcan liners).
Housekeeping Services spent almost $120,000 on trashcan liners in 2008, and “green” polyliners
cost about 10 percent more than the liners currently in use.12 FM could also look to the
University of Tennessee, which has obtained a GS-42 certification, for ideas for specific
products for which acceptable “green” alternatives have not yet been identified.
Costs/Issues
The cost of achieving a GS-42 certification for FM has not been determined, but according to
Green Seal, fees for initial certification start at about $7,000. An additional annual maintenance
fee, also starting at about $7,000, is required to maintain certification.13
GS-42 certification standards require daily vacuuming in primary work or office areas and carpet
extraction on an as-needed basis. Housekeeping cleaning frequencies in some spaces,
particularly vacuuming and carpet cleaning in office areas, were reduced in the past ten years due
to budget cuts.
Recommendation
FM should work with Daycon to continue progress towards achieving GS-42 standards with the
goal of obtaining certification within 3-5 years. As part of this process, FM should regularly
report on progress towards meeting the GS-42 standards. FM should also work with the
Department of Procurement and Supply to negotiate lower prices for any “green” cleaning
products that currently carry a significant price premium.
10
Harvard University. (2009). Green Cleaning. http://www.uos.harvard.edu/fmo/custodial/greencleaning/
Rutgers University. (2007). Green cleaning chemicals may be responsible for fewer sick days, better employee
health. http://news.rutgers.edu/focus/issue.2007-11-06.8873692102/article.2007-11-07.0057889944
12
Dykes, S. Personal Communication. 15 Apr. 2009.
13
Building Services Management. http://www.bsmmag.com/bsmmag/BSMArticle.asp?id=4032
11
33
MEMO 4: Endowment Transparency
To: University of Maryland Foundation
CC: Linda Clement, Ann Wylie, Brodie Remington
From: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
Re: Endowment Transparency
Current Status on Campus
Despite the great strides that the University of Maryland has made in campus sustainability, it
recently received a B- grade from greenreportcard.org – perhaps the most widely publicized
rating of North American universities according to the criterion of university sustainability.1 This
grade was significantly influenced by the University’s lack of endowment transparency, a
category in which it received an F. The Green Report Card ranking system is generated by the
Sustainable Endowments Institute, a special project of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors.
Although there are a number of university sustainability rankings, and all have significant flaws,
the Green Report Card makes the most complete effort to gather information and is probably the
most widely cited ranking at present.
The University of Maryland endowment is managed centrally by the statewide system. The total
endowment statewide is about $800 million endowment; the College Park share is about $400
million. The investment portfolio is handled by investment managers, who also control
shareholder voting and proxy voting. Neither the University nor the managers make the
holdings of the endowment publicly available.
Endowment transparency is important because certain investment practices could work against
the University’s on-campus sustainability initiatives. Investment in unnecessarily carbonintensive industries or companies with poor environmental records might damage the
University’s environmental record. According to its Mission Statement, “The University creates
and applies knowledge for the benefit of the economy and culture of the State, the region, the
nation, and beyond”2. As a public institution, the University of Maryland has a responsibility to
be socially and environmentally aware in all of its endeavors, including investments. Endowment
transparency will shed light on investment practices and foster a public dialogue about the
University’s overall sustainability impact on the world.
Best Practices
Two of the University of Maryland’s public university peers, the University of Michigan and the
University of Illinois, received A grades for endowment transparency on their sustainability
report cards from the Sustainable Endowments Institute.3 These schools list endowment holdings
and shareholder voting records in a publicly available record.
1
The College Sustainability Report Card, 2009.
University of Maryland, 2008. Emphasis added.
3
The College Sustainability Report Card, 2009.
2
Nationwide, one in three Colleges or Universities maintains a public list of endowment holdings.
Twenty-three percent of schools make proxy voting records publicly available. Because most
schools do not yet follow this policy, the average grade for endowment transparency was a D+.
Alternatives
Open management of the University’s endowment would foster the free flow of information and
allow for public review and comment on the social and environmental consequences of the
University’s investment decisions. To achieve endowment transparency, the University must
publicly disclose a list of endowment holdings (and any shareholder voting records).
Cost/Issues
The major barrier to improving endowment transparency is that investments are delegated to
professional investment managers, not handled directly by the University. At present, managers
handle shareholder voting and proxy voting as well. Hiring professional investment managers
ensures that the University’s endowment will be handled with the expertise to ensure optimal
returns on investment. Given the potential to impact the market, the University would not want
to reveal its specific share purchasing decisions until after they have been made. However,
broader endowment policies could be disclosed and debated well in advance.
Recommendations
The University of Maryland’s Foundation, working with its investment managers, should publish
a list of endowment holdings (and any shareholder voting records) on its website. These records
updated frequently and should be easily accessible to students, faculty, staff, and the general
public.
Key Information Sources:
The College Sustainability Report Card. University of Maryland College Park. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009/schools/university-of-maryland-college-park
The College Sustainability Report Card. University of Michigan Ann Arbor. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009/schools/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor
The College Sustainability Report Card. University of Illinois. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009/schools/university-of-illinois
Raley, L. Email to Author. 9 May, 2009.
University of Maryland. (2008). Strategic Plan and University Mission Statement. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.provost.umd.edu/Strategic_Planning/PlanAndMission.html
35
MEMO 5: Green Investing
TO: University of Maryland Foundation
CC: Linda Clement, Ann Wylie, Brodie Remington
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Green Investing
Current Status on Campus
Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) can be an effective way for an institution to promote its
values. SRI has a history dating back to the 18th century when the Quaker church forbade its
members from participating in the slave trade. More recently, student protests in the 1980s
convinced many colleges and universities to divest from businesses in South Africa that were
tacitly supporting apartheid. As a result, a coalition of businesses drafted a charger calling for
the end to apartheid that helped to provide a catalyst to the end of this system.
Although the University of Maryland Foundation aims to optimize investment returns (relative to
risks) in its total $800 million endowment (for all units of the statewide University system), thus
far it has not considered the social and environmental impact of its investment choices. A highperforming endowment performs an important social function in itself: maximizing financial
returns helps the University to pursue its goal of becoming one of the nation’s top research
institutions, advancing human knowledge and improving the lives of its students. However, the
University also has social and environmental obligations, such as fostering environmental
sustainability, which deserve consideration in its investment decisions. Past studies have
suggested that social responsible investments can earn rates of financial return comparable to the
broader investment classes.
The University of Maryland College Park recently received a B- grade from
greenreportcard.org.1 This low grade was influenced by a C in the Investment Priorities category.
Three factors are considered in the Investment Priorities grade: (1) prioritizing overall financial
returns on investment, (2) investing in renewable energy funds2, and (3) investing in community
development loan funds3. The University of Maryland earned a C simply because it has a goal to
achieve a high investment return, but it does not set a priority to invest in renewable energy
funds or community development loan funds.
Best Practices
Nationwide, 35 percent of colleges and universities invest at least a part of their endowment in
renewable energy funds while 10 percent invest in community development funds.
Greenreportcard.org’s average grade for Investment Priorities was a B, but no school earned
1
The College Sustainability Report Card, 2009
Funds consisting of stock in renewable energy companies.
3
Direct investments in community organizations that provide services such as housing, small business creation, or
education.
2
lower than a C in this category because all Universities have a goal to maximize overall returns
on investments.
Many of the University of Maryland’s aspirational peers follow socially and environmentally
responsible investment practices. UNC and the University of Michigan earned A’s in the
Investment Priority category. UNC invests in renewable energy funds while maximizing return
on its portfolio and is considering investing in community development loan funds. Michigan
also invests in renewable energy funds while optimizing investment returns. Investment
managers and some gift program managers consider environmental sustainability in their
decision-making processes.
UCLA and UC Berkeley each earned B grades in the Investment Priority category. UCLA is
considering investing in renewable energy funds. UC Berkeley is exploring community
development loan funds and its investment committee is in discussions with investment
managers with regard to sustainability issues in its holdings.
Alternatives
There are several options for socially responsible investment that the University of Maryland
could use without compromising investment returns. Beyond investing in renewable energy
funds or community development funds, SRI strategies can include divestment from companies
with unethical practices, screening new investments, and engaging in shareholder activism to
influence the decisions of companies the University is invested in.
Costs/Issues
Evidence shows that SRIs perform on par with, and sometimes better than, the market as a
whole. Moreover, SRIs are rapidly growing and becoming more mainstream. From 1995 to
2007, “total dollars under professional management in SRI grew from $639 billion to $2.71
trillion, outpacing the overall market.”4 Investment in SRIs among fiduciaries with legal
obligations to seek competitive returns on their portfolios, such as foundations, university
endowments, and state pension funds, are increasing as well, showing that SRIs are a
competitive investment strategy. The following table compares the performance of four SRIs
with the S&P 500.
Assets
Performance of Socially Responsible Mutual Funds vs S&P 5005
Pax World
Parnassus
Access
Winslow
S&P 5006
Balanced
Equity
Capital
Green
Income
Strategies
Growth
Fund
Community Fund
Investment
Fund
1,466.20
1,254.30
547.80
149.19
--------
4
Social Investment Forum
Data on socially responsible mutual funds from Social Investment Forum, 2009
6
Standard and Poor’s, 2009
5
37
(millions)
YTD
Performance
3-Year
10-Year
-3.82
-10.94
3.39
-11.42
-2.495
-8.22
1.12
-5.14
4.84
5.69
5.20
-26.20
5.22
-10.737
-2.478
Recommendation
The University of Maryland Foundation should assess the social and environmental impacts of
its current investment strategies. Considering the affect that the University’s endowment has on
the world will help make it a national leader in sustainability and social responsibility.
A first step in forming a socially responsible investment strategy is to examine carefully the
business practices of the companies in which the University currently invests, identifying which
holdings are compatible with the University’s values, and which holdings may not be compatible
with the University’s principles. A list of the latter category should be provided to investment
managers.
A next step is to formulate investment goals that maximize returns while maintaining social
responsibility. The University of Maryland Foundation should discuss the merits of investing in
renewable energy funds, community development funds, and engaging in shareholder activism.
Bringing these issues to the table is a crucial step in the University’s investment practices that
will help to make it a national leader in sustainability.
Key Information Sources
AARP. Socially Responsible Investing. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aarp.org/money/financial_planning/sessionsix/socially_responsible_investing.html
The College Sustainability Report Card. (2009). University of Maryland—College Park. Retrieved May 7, 2009
from http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009/schools/university-of-maryland-college-park
Social Investment Forum. Performance and Socially Responsible Investments. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.socialinvest.org/resources/performance.cfm
Social Investment Forum. (2009, March 31). Socially Responsible Mutual Fund Charts: Financial Performance.
Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.socialinvest.org/resources/mfpc/
Standard and Poor’s. (2009, May 1). Indices: S&P 500. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www2.standardandpoors.com/
38
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILIT Y OPTIONS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY
39
The University has taken various steps to improve energy efficiency. The recipient of the EPA’s
2005 Energy Star Award, the University’s Combined Heat and Power Plant was completed in
2003. This plant produces the steam required for heating and in some cases cooling for the
University. The plant can produce up to 90 percent of the University’s winter electric demand
and around 50 percent of the summer demand. The system operates at efficiencies of around 70
percent, significantly higher than like-sized independent steam boilers and electric generators
and requires approximately 16 percent less fuel than typical purchased electricity with separate
steam generation, resulting in a reduction of nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and roughly 53,000
tons of carbon dioxide annually.
A thermal energy storage system cools water at night and stores it for daytime cooling of three
UMD buildings. Lighting across campus is being updated to higher efficiency lamps and the
number of lamps is being reduced in some areas. New carbon dioxide monitors are being
installed to ventilate buildings only when necessary.
Hallways across campus now use 80 percent less energy than they did before a campus-wide
lighting retrofit project started in spring 2008. The Hallway Lighting Project replaced existing T8
fluorescent light fixtures with new T5 volumetric light fixtures, setting lighting levels at those
specified by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. This combination of using
energy efficient fixtures and reducing lighting levels will save approximately 6,600 Megawatt
hours of electricity and 5,200 tons of CO2* emissions each year.
The Maryland Board of Public Works approved a $20 million contract with Johnson Controls to
purchase and install efficient electrical, mechanical and plumbing equipment. The State of
Maryland has provided a financing mechanism for such projects (“energy performance
contracts”). The project is designed to save 22 percent of the energy use in the buildings
guaranteeing energy and operational savings of $1.7 million dollars each year. That translates
into savings of 4,100 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The contract will address lighting; water
use; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); building envelope; and building
automation controls.
There are many additional steps, however, that could be taken to improve the energy efficiency
of the campus. The list below is not intended to be comprehensive but to highlight several
promising possibilities.
40
MEMO 6: Dorm Electricity Use Competition
TO: Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Dorm Electricity Use Competition
Current Status on Campus
Providing individuals with feedback on their personal energy use and the financial impacts of
energy use have been shown to inspire people to change their behavior.1 While similar programs
have been implemented at other schools, the University of Maryland has not implemented a
widespread competitive energy conservation program. The EcoHouse is a living-learning
program currently at the University of Maryland. Students living in the New Leonardtown
apartments learn to live a sustainable lifestyle while taking courses together on sustainability and
the environment. While this program allows a small group of students interested in sustainability
to increase their knowledge about conservation, it does little to bring in the broader university
community.
However, it does highlight that dorms are an excellent place to focus behavioral modification
programs since dorm occupants, unlike classroom occupants, remain relatively the same
throughout the school year. This allows for encouraging behavioral changes and linking
performance to a reward system in a way that cannot be done in classroom buildings that have a
constant flux of occupants. On North Campus, home to mostly freshman undergraduates,
students develop ties to their particular buildings which become their first homes on campus and
possible their first homes away from their families. These ties could be used to encourage
improvements in energy conservation.
According to a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an estimated 14% of
energy used in MIT dorms was wasted due to idling computers and speakers.2 There are many
other ways in which excessive energy use occurs in dorms. Educating UMD students on this
issue and encouraging them through an incentive system could reduce energy demand by a
significant percentage of wasted electricity.
Best Practices
At Oberlin College, a two-week program is run each spring to encourage students to decrease
energy consumption and educate them on strategies to do so. The dorm that reduces energy by
the greatest percentage over the period wins. An award is also given out for the greatest one day
reduction over the course of the two weeks. Oberlin College set up a website that gave
1 Midden, C. J., Meter, J. F., Weenig, M. H., & Zieverink, H. J. (1983). Using feedback, reinforcement and
information to reduce energy consumption in households: A field-experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology , 3
(1), 65-86.
2 Oehlerking, Austin. (2008). Establishing a demand curve for plug-Load electricity consumption in an MIT
dormitory. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from Campus Greening at MIT: http://greenmit.wordpress.com/abstract-ofdorm-room-electricity-demand-curve-paper/
suggestions to students on how to reduce energy use. The baseline average energy use is taken
from the period between the start of the semester and spring break. By comparing the percent
reduction from this period to the competition period, differences related to efficiency of the
particular building and past performance of current residents can be taken into account. Data can
be viewed in real time on the project's website. The program was paid for by the EPA "People,
Prosperity and the Planet" program and by the Ohio Foundation of Independent Colleges.
Oberlin College dorms reduced electricity use by 32% during the competition, with two dorms
reaching 56%. Students conserved 68,000 kWh, saved $5,100, and reduced emissions by
150,000 lbs of CO2, 1,400 lbs of SO2 and 500 lbs of NOx. The website for the competition
received 4,000 hits during the two weeks, mostly from computers in dorm rooms. A survey after
the competition showed that students learned new strategies and intended to continue them.3
The University of Michigan runs a campus outreach program called Planet Blue that forms teams
of various campus actors to create plans for saving on utility use. Planet Blue provides data on
energy consumption trends by building and tips for managing consumption. The following chart
shows some of the Planet Blue's suggested actions and the corresponded monetary and emissions
savings.4
The figures are based on estimates for the Michigan campus, but they may be comparable to the
savings that Maryland could achieve with an energy savings campaign. Through merely
providing consumption information and tips on possible actions, the campus could empower
various members of the campus community to change their habits.
Alternatives
A dorm competition program should be piloted to test various methodologies and
implementation strategies. As a self-supporting program on campus, Residential Facilities can
obtain independent financing for such a pilot. Information on electricity consumption is currently
available from Lisa Amick, Assistant to the Director of Residential Facilities in the Office of
3
4
Oberlin College, Campus Resource Monitoring System. http://www.oberlin.edu/dormenergy/
University of Michigan, Planet Blue. http://www.planetblue.umich.edu/home.php.
42
Student Affairs. She has access to historical databases on energy use by dorm building by month,
but current record-keeping now tracks weekly data. North Campus provides an ideal setting for a
competition because of the dorm camaraderie that exists as well as the general uniformity of the
buildings, although some building vary slightly in size and layout.
How to Measure Results
Choosing the correct metric for comparing results must be done carefully to ensure fairness. If
comparing data year to year, weather differences will apply. To account for these differences, the
competition could compare percent reductions from the same monthly period of the last year by
dorm. To address varying building sizes, the measurement comparison could be framed in terms
of kWh/occupant.
High and Low Cost Options
A lower cost option for the pilot would be for Resident Life to coordinate with dorm Community
Assistants and Residential Assistants to post charts on progress and fliers detailing ways to
conserve energy. Additionally, they could run small activities during floor meetings to instruct
students on ways to save electricity. The Planet Blue list provides a helpful starting point for
behavior changes and the Maryland EcoHouse may be another resource.
A more preferable, but higher cost option is to implement a real-time program modeled after
Oberlin College's competition and Planet Blue's data website. This would require greater
resources for monitoring and tracking energy use as well as a sophisticated website that can
report real time data. Even in the absence of a contest, having real time data available on a
website could create a greater awareness of energy use and encourage students to voluntarily
take action.
Costs/Issues
Cost considerations depend on the type of pilot program chosen. The costs of running a dorm
energy use competition without a real time data website would be minimal. Costs would mainly
include office supplies for setting up charts and posters around dorms. Also, some resources will
need to be allocated to provide a reward for the winning dorm. These costs should be quite small
in relation to energy savings and costs could be recouped from money that would have been
spent on paying electricity bills.
Recommendation
The University of Maryland should form a pilot dorm competition program based on the best
practices of other institutions in hopes of designing a more robust program in the future. Through
a competition, the university can teach students about conservation while simultaneously saving
university resources and building its status as a green campus. The University should publicize
the competition (such as form appearances by University sports figures) and include attractive
prizes (such as special access to athletic and other University events).
43
MEMO 7: Sustainability Dorm Competition
TO: Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Sustainability Dorm Competition
Current Status on Campus
As a way of encouraging wider sustainability goals on campus, the University of Maryland could
go beyond energy and create an overall sustainability contest between dorm buildings. Under this
program, dorms of students could earn points or be ranked in terms of their utility usage and
participation in various types of educational and sustainability activities.
Encouraging sustainable student habits through a dorm competition fits into goals laid out by the
University's administration. According to the University of Maryland 2007-2008 Strategic
Plan,“The University will become a model for environmental stewardship and sustainability. We
will substantially reduce the use of energy, water, materials, and natural resources.”
Best Practices
Duke University ran a program called Eco-Olympics in 2006. The program addressed energy and
water use reduction through a dorm competition on its East Campus. The competition included a
series of events that educated students and impacted reductions. Students could earn points by
participating in events and have chances to win prizes.5
Links to various energy and sustainability dorm competition programs can be found at
http://www2.aashe.org/competitions/competition-websites/competition-websites.
Alternatives
A pilot sustainability competition could be conducted to test various methodologies for
implementing a wider University of Maryland program later. Steps could include making
available data on energy use and water use that is currently available by building for much of the
University of Maryland campus. It also may be possible to measure recycling in terms of weight
per occupant in the buildings. Below are some possibilities for program design.
Managing the Program
The competition could be led and implemented primarily by the Department of Resident Life.
Another option would be to form a student club or joint effort of various academic departments
to create a student-run organization. This group could work in conjunction with the Department
of Resident Life to design and carry out the program. This would relieve Resident Life staff of
5 Eco-Olympics 2006. Retrieved May 5, 2009 from the Duke University website:
http://www.duke.edu/web/env_alliance/games/.
44
the burden of running the program while providing an educational and leadership opportunity for
students. The EcoHouse may be a good resource for finding interested students.
Education and Outreach
The University of Maryland Draft Climate Action Plan suggests education and outreach should
be a focus of campus efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions.6 A dorm competition will
require education and advertising in order to inform students of the mechanisms of the
competition and ways to participate. The education portion of the program could include the
following:





posters and decorations around the dorms,
t-shirts advertising the competition,
information sessions led by community and residential assistants,
film presentations and guest speakers on sustainability and efficiency,
eco-trivia nights and other events to teach students about the conservation and
sustainability.
Many of these methods would be inexpensive and simple to organize. The Duke University EcoOlympics budget included $140 for supplies such as decorations, $1776 for advertising, as well
as a speaker and film component that cost $1000.7
Measurement of Results
One option for measuring results could be through a point system. Points could be based on a
variety of events, including energy and water use reductions. If the program was expanded to
include greenhouse gas emissions, recycling efforts or water conservation, successes in these
areas could warrant points. Additionally, participation in program events such as attending
environmental talks or films could generate points. The points could be weighted to reflect the
contribution of the event towards sustainability goals. One potential problem with this strategy is
that a point system could be more subject to ties. It could also generate controversy over how to
weight particular events or accomplishments.
Costs/Issues
Care should be taken to design the program in such a way that it motivates high student
participation. An organizer of the Oberlin College dorm energy competition commented on some
of difficulties experienced with the program. The student warned that having too much emphasis
on events during the competition detracted from advertising efforts. As a result, students were
6 The University of maryland draft climate action plan. (2009). Retrieved May 4, 2009 from the Office of
Sustainability website: http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/UMD_CAP_Draft.pdf.
7 Sample Eco-Olympics budget. Retrieved May 4, 2009 from Dorm vs. Dorm Sustainability Competition website:
http://www2.aashe.org/competitions/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/sample-budget.pdf.
45
confused about the purpose of the program. Additionally, the program suffered somewhat from
the lack of an interesting prize, so it may be worth investing substantial resources into rewards.8
Recommendations
The University of Maryland should form a pilot sustainability competition program based on the
best practices of other institutions in hopes of designing a more robust program in the future.
Through a full fledged dorm competition involving many aspects of sustainability, the university
can help students develop sustainable habits while saving money and resources for the university
and enhancing the university's sustainability profile.
8
Lessons learned section. Retrieved May 4, 2009 from Dorm vs. Dorm Sustainability Competition website:
http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/28/oberlin-ecolympics-wrap-up/#more-4671.
46
MEMO 8: Occupancy Lighting Sensors
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Occupancy Sensors
Current Status on Campus
Lighting accounts for a significant part of the University’s total energy costs. The Hallway
Lighting Project, which started in 2008, replaced T8 fluorescent light fixtures with T5 volumetric
light fixtures and also reduced lighting levels. The project decreased total hallway lighting
energy use by 80 percent.9 However, since hallway lighting only makes up about 12 percent of
total lighting energy use10, significant potential remains to reduce lighting energy consumption.
Occupancy sensors use different technologies to detect the presence or absence of people in a
space and automatically turn lights on or off with the room’s use. The most effective locations
for occupancy sensors are areas that are used infrequently or unpredictably. Three types of
sensors include passive infrared (PIR), ultrasonic, and dual-technology. The different types of
sensors have different applications for which they are best suited depending on specific
characteristics of the space. EPA estimates that potential energy savings from occupancy sensors
are 13-50 percent for private offices; 40-46 percent for classrooms; 30-90 percent for restrooms;
and 30-80 percent for corridors.11 Occupancy sensors have already been installed in some
buildings on the Maryland campus and are being considered for other areas.
Best Practices
Tufts University initiated a lighting project in 2001 that included installing motion sensors in 14
buildings. The project, which also equipped the buildings with compact fluorescent bulbs,
resulted in savings of about 900,000 kWh per year, and had a payback period of just 2.5 years.12
Alternatives
The University could expand efforts to install occupancy sensors in buildings across campus.
The first step could involve systematically identifying areas where installing occupancy sensors
would produce the greatest savings. Since potential savings vary due to room size and other
factors, the most cost-effective strategy might involve addressing specific types of areas such as
restrooms or large classrooms rather than whole buildings. A priority listing of rooms and
buildings to receive occupancy sensors could be established for the entire campus. Available
funds for occupancy sensors could be allocated in part based on this priority listing. University
departments and divisions that installed occupancy sensors, and achieved corresponding
9
University of Maryland. (2008).Campus Sustainability Report 2008.
Sleiman, J. (2008). Campus hallways to receive new lights. Diamondback Online.
http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2008/02/08/News/Campus.Hallways.To.
Receive.New.Lights-3197534.shtml
11
North Carolina State Energy Office. (2004). http://www.energync.net/resources/docs/pubs/occupancy.pdf
12
Tufts University. (2008). Lighting Upgrades and Motion Sensors. http://sustainability.tufts.edu/?pid=37
10
47
reductions in total energy use, should be allowed to share in the financial benefits of the resulting
energy cost savings.
Costs/Issues
The rate of financial return to installing occupancy sensors is often high because the costs of the
sensors is low. Costs for occupancy sensors vary depending on the type of technology, wattage,
and other factors, but usually range from about $50 to $150 per unit.13 Payback periods for
installing occupancy sensors typically range from about 0.5 to 5 years depending on the size of
the room and the energy savings potential.
The upfront cost of occupancy sensors could be a hurdle even though the price of sensors is not
great and the payback period is relatively short. One potential financing mechanism is the State
Energy Loan Program (SALP), which provides zero-interest loans to State agencies for energy
efficiency improvements. The Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) recently increased the
total annual amount available for loans from $1 million to $1.8 million.14 Since the cost of an
occupancy sensor is frequently about $100, even a modest loan could allow the University to
purchase several thousand occupancy sensors -- assuming Facilities Management could provide
the labor for the installations. This would generate substantial energy savings campuswide.
Recommendation
The University should increase existing efforts to install occupancy sensors across campus by
first identifying buildings and specific room types that would produce the greatest savings. The
University should also explore potential financing options including the State Energy Loan
Program. The University should examine the possibility of establishing its own revolving loan
program for occupancy sensors. University departments and divisions that make special efforts
to install occupancy sensors should be able to share in the energy cost savings generated.
13
14
California Department of General Services. (2009). http://www.green.ca.gov/EPP/building/sensors.htm
Maryland Energy Administration. (2009). http://energy.maryland.gov/incentives/state-local/stateagencyloan.asp
48
MEMO 9: Smart Meters
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Smart Meters
Current Status on Campus
Energy at the University is currently provided by facilities management via the combined heat
and power plant and regional utility companies. Energy bills are paid by either the state, for
state-supported departments, or by the departments themselves, for self-supported departments.
At the level of most state-supported departments, and especially the level of buildings and
individuals, there is little information available regarding energy consumption and cost.
Providing and funding energy on campus is centralized and there are few incentives for
individuals or departments to control or reduce energy consumption.
Behavior modification policies designed to help members of the campus community make better
energy decisions are an integral part of the University’s draft Climate Action Plan (CAP).1 A
powerful method for changing behavior is to make the behavior you wish to change and its
implications more transparent. Currently, energy consumption and cost at the University is
opaque at the level of departments, buildings and individuals. Two options for making
University energy consumption and cost more transparent are smart metering and an energy
consumption website. Smart meters are electricity meters with the capability to monitor
electricity consumption in real-time.
Best Practices
The University of Michigan’s website, http://www.planetblue.umich.edu/, displays past
electricity, energy and water consumption and cost by building. The website is easy to use and
there is an abundance of information. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009
(the stimulus bill) included language to install 40 million smart meters in American homes.2
Alternatives
The University could aggresivly adopt smart meters by installing them in all buildings with
multiple submeters in each building. An alternative and less costly approach, however, would be
to select one campus building to serve as a pilot project. The concern with widespread
1
University of Maryland, Office of Sustainability. http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=CAP_feedback
Katie Fehrenbacher. Business Week. “Bringing Smart Energy Home.” April 15, 2009.
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090414_446611.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+in
dex+-+temp_technology
2
installation of smart meters on-campus is that it wouldn’t be cost-effective, though it would be
very informative and likely to create some behavior modification.
Installing a few smart meters in one building (perhaps one per floor) could provide enough
information to create behavior-driven energy savings in a cost-effective manner. A pilot project
would illuminate how and when smart meters could be effective on campus and ensure a campus
smart meter policy doesn’t sink under its’ own weight. Additionally, watt-hour meters, which
display electricty use of individual appliances, would be beneficial to the campus community.3
Students and staff should know more precisely how their appliances consume energy and a watthour meter will do this. At around $30 per watt-meter, the University could purchase several of
these and make them available to building managers for loan or create a rental program through
the University library.
Smart meter data may be difficult to interpret for faculty, staff and students if placed out of
context – this will limit how individuals respond and react. Such a problem reveals the need to
supplement smart meters with a tool that conveys electricity data online. The internet is very
accessible and a website can be structured in a user-friendly way that puts data in-context and
offers additional information that will help the campus community understand the consequences
of their actions.
Smart meters would allow the University to reexamine its budgetary procedures for energy
consumption. Each University department or division might be given a quota of a “sustainable”
level of energy consumption, tailored to is specific circumstances. The energy cost of this quota
would be paid centrally. Use of electricity above the quota might be charged directly to the
relevant University department or division. Use of electricity below the quota might generate a
money rebate that would be distributed to the relevant University department or division.
Costs/ Issues
Ideally, smart meters will make visible what wasn’t before and open the door to better energy
decisions on-campus. With enough smart meters in place, the potential would exist for
significant energy savings. Realistically, the centralized structure of energy provision and
funding on-campus will remain an obstacle to behavior modifications. Because most campus
departments, aside from the self-support units, do not pay for their own electricity, there is no
incentive to cut back on consumption. The financial driver for behavior modification is the
reason why most advocates of smart meters see them being most effective in private homes as
opposed to shared, commercial buildings. This is probably why
A hurdle to creating an online, energy use viewer is cost of time and money. If developed
properly, then such a tool will require considerable programming. Maintenance of the site will
require constant communication between the Office of Technology and Facilities Management
and could necessitate the creation of at least one new job (granted this could be viewed as a
benefit in a time of high unemployment). Furthermore, the site by itself won’t create energy
3
Smarthome.com. http://www.smarthome.com/11392/UPM-Dual-Rate-Energy-Meter-with-LCD-DisplayEM130/p.aspx
50
savings unless it is advertised and coupled with opportunities to apply the data (i.e., dorm energy
saving competition).
Energy report cards will only go so far in providing useful information. First, report cards will
only show past energy use and not real-time use. Also, report cards will be targeted at
departments and not buildings; departments can be spread across buildings and buildings vary by
age, location and occupancy, so it will be useful to have building-specific information. With realtime information about energy consumption at the level of buildings or possibly floors or rooms,
campus faculty, staff and students can better connect their actions to an outcome.
Recommendations
The University of Maryland should select a building to serve as a pilot project for smart meter
installation. To supplement smart meter installation, the University should also purchase some
watt-hour meters. Facilities Management could monitor the new data alongside building
occupants; campus organizations could raise awareness about smart meters and gauge the
options for expanding smart meters to the entire campus. The funding system for electricity use
at the University could be revisited to provide incentives directly to individual departments,
buildings, and divisions to reduce energy use.
The University of Maryland Office of Technology should work with Facilities Management to
create a site similar to the University of Michigan site. If possible, the website should include
real-time data by building; this would have a number of useful applications including dorm vs.
dorm electricity saving competitions.
51
MEMO 10 – Fume Hoods
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Fume Hoods
Current Status on Campus
There are about 750 fume hoods on campus.4 Fume hoods represent a significant source of
outside airflow, and many older fume hoods have no controls for airflow rate. Reducing airflow
saves fan energy and the energy needed to condition the outside air to adjust temperature and
humidity.5 Lab spaces are required to have a high air exchange rates, but oftentimes the air
pushed through fume hoods far exceeds these minimum requirements.6 According to the
Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, a typical fume hood in the U.S. uses more than three times as
much energy as a home.7
Two general types of fume hoods are constant air volume (CAV) hoods and variable air volume
(VAV) hoods. CAV hoods move the same amount of air regardless of the sash position,
meaning that lowering the sash does not decrease energy use. In contrast, with VAV hoods, the
volume of air exhausted depends on the face opening, meaning that the larger the fume hood
opening, the more energy needed to condition the air.8 About 140 of the fume hoods on campus
are VAV hoods and these are mostly in Chemistry- Wing 3.9
The University is currently addressing fume hood energy use through whole-building
approaches, such as energy performance contracts, that do not specifically target fume hoods but
rather high energy-using buildings.10 Facilities Management has also started adjusting units with
high exhaust volumes.11
Best Practices
Harvard implemented a “Shut the Sash” campaign after finding that most fume hoods were wide
open all the time and that most researchers did not realize that they could reduce energy use by
keeping the sash closed. The campaign involved placing “Shut the Sash” magnets on each fume
hood in five building as well as outreach and regular visual audits. The campaign included a
contest among labs during one month with a prize. The average sash opening dropped form 12
inches to 2 inches and saved over $100,000 in annual energy costs.12
4
Benas, C. Personal Communication. 21 May 2009.
White, G. Personal Interview. 14 Apr. 2009.
6
MIT. (2009). Fume Hoods. http://sustainability.mit.edu/projects/fume-hoods
7
Lawrence Berkeley Lab. (2009). Laboratory Fume Hood Energy Model. http://fumehoodcalculator.lbl.gov/
8
MIT. (2009). Fume Hoods. http://sustainability.mit.edu/projects/fume-hoods
9
Benas, C. Personal Communication. 21 May 2009.
10
Corry, S. Personal Interview. 20 Apr. 2009.
11
Benas, C. Personal Communication. 21 May 2009.
12
Harvard University. (2009). HMS Shut the Sash Campaign. http://green.harvard.edu/hms/shut-the-sash
5
52
The MIT Chemistry Department implemented a campaign to reduce energy use from VAV fume
hoods by providing lab users with monthly feedback on energy use using data from fume hood
sash position sensors. As a result of the campaign, sashes were lowered by 26% for a net savings
of about $41,000 per year for the department.13
Alternatives
One option to reduce fume hood energy use would be to continue the current strategy of
addressing fume hoods through whole-building approaches. An alternative would be to form a
working group to develop a plan to address energy use from all fume hoods on campus. A first
step in this process would be to develop an inventory of all fume hoods on campus and to
conduct a survey of the existing manner of their use. Potential energy savings to the University
resulting from more sustainable use of fume hoods could then be estimated.
The University could also consider implementing a pilot informational campaign in one building
with a large number of VAV fume hoods to evaluate the potential to reduce fume hood energy
use through greater education and awareness. For an informational campaign to be most
successful, it would be important to be able to measure individual fume hood energy use and
communicate energy information to users.
Costs/Issues
Since whole-building approaches are beginning to address fume hood energy use, it would be
important to evaluate the potential impact of this strategy compared to an initiative specifically
targeting fume hoods. Adjusting the exhaust volume of fume hoods requires system-wide air
balancing, which increases the necessary labor. Since only about 20 percent of the fume hoods
on campus are VAV hoods, the current potential to reduce fume hood energy use through
behavioral approaches is limited. Finally, financing options for any large-scale initiative
targeting fume hoods would need to be explored.
Recommendations
The University should develop a comprehensive plan for systematically reducing energy use
from fume hoods across campus. This plan should include estimated costs and savings of
potential strategies. The University should also consider developing a pilot informational
campaign to encourage energy reductions among individual users of VAV hoods.
13
MIT. (2009). Fume Hoods. http://sustainability.mit.edu/projects/fume-hoods
53
MEMO 11: “Solar Power” for Clothes Drying
TO: Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: “Solar Power” for Clothes Drying
Current Status on Campus
The University of Maryland has 37 residence facilities housing 8,357 students and 20 of these
buildings have coin-operated laundry facilities. The university residences have 149 laundry
dryers that each consume 5,320 watts per hour. The dryers can be used for a fee of $1.25 for one
hour and $0.25 for each additional 15 minutes. At a rate of $0.14 per kWh, residential facility
dryers cost $108,500 in 2008.
Research by a University of Maryland graduate student recently estimated that students dry one
load of clothes per week in the University’s electric dryers. Assuming an equal number of
washing and drying loads, 122,545 dryer cycles ran in 2008 and required 651 Mwh of electricity.
Total electricity consumption of all kinds in all residential facilities was metered at 11,430 Mwh
in 2008. These figures imply that clothes dryers accounted for as much as 15% of total
electricity used in University dorms. Some part of this large consumption of energy could be
saved by making a clothes line drying option available to students.
Currently, the University of Maryland does not encourage line drying and provides no laundry
lines to students. It might be possible to provide fold-up racks for drying in individual rooms but
such racks are not easily available at present. The university prohibits hanging laundry lines from
sprinkler heads and any outdoor lines. The window screens also prevent any lines from being
hung out windows.
A contractor operates the laundry facilities and returns much of the revenue to the university
($297,000 was returned from total laundry fee collections of $337,000 in 2008). Subtracting
electricity costs from the previous revenue estimate, the university generated $25,000 from
dryers, which helped subsidize the cost of students living in dorms.1
Best Practices
Outside the University, Project Laundry List, a non-profit organization, works to encourage what
it terms the “right to dry.” A typical household can save 10-15% of its energy consumption by
hanging clothes to dry rather than running an electric dryer. Many communities, however, ban
the use of clothes lines. Project Laundry List has worked to remove these bans and promotes
their cause through their National Hanging Out Day event.2 As sustainability measures, three
states have enacted legislation – and others are considering it -- banning private community
associations from adopting rules to prohibit the use of clothes lines.
1 Balachandran, Suchitra. (2009). The economics of dryers and laundry lines in residential facilities at the
University of Maryland campus. Paper for PUAF740: Introduction to Environmental Policy.
2 Project Laundry List. http://www.laundrylist.org/
In Southern California Pomona College began a green laundry program in the spring of 2008.
First, an online survey was conducted to determine student interest in line drying options. Using
this information, two projects were designed and implemented in 2008. First, eight large drying
racks in five campus laundry rooms were installed. This included 420 feet of clothesline which
cost $1500. The second project involved the purchase of 25 foldable, personal-sized drying
racks. The racks were loans to students for use in their rooms for the academic year. The projects
were funded by the Pomona College President's Sustainability Fund.
Pomona also is building a LEED Gold-certified residence hall with a laundry room to be
outfitted with 150 feet of line drying space. Education programs also have been designed to
instruct students on the benefits of smart laundry practices. The education programs mainly
consisted of posters in the laundry rooms.
Pomona estimated a decrease of 2.87 mTCO2e from the drying racks, a negligible impact on
greenhouse gas emissions compared to the total college emissions. However, the racks have a
short payback from energy savings, only 5.3 years. A more long term benefit will be helping
students form environmentally-friendly laundry habits. Many Europeans do not own clothes
dryers even if they can afford them. The main reason Americans do not use line drying is
because it is not culturally encouraged. Line drying also can leave clothes feeling fresher and can
help prolong the life of student clothing. Gas-electric dryers can also over dry clothes, weakening
their fibers.3
Alternatives
Designing and implementing a line drying program for the University of Maryland dorms would
be a low cost way to save money, reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and
encourage better student energy use habits. To begin, a survey should be conducted to determine
how many students would participate in the program and if they had any reservations about using
the system.
The following possibilities for designing a clothes drying program come from the Pomona
College report:
Drying racks permanently installed in laundry rooms
Racks available for semester-long checkout
Include racks as standard-issue “furniture” for suite common rooms
Drying racks permanently installed in residence hall hallways or “nooks and
crannies”
Drying racks permanently installed in designated “air drying rooms”
Traditional dorm buildings, such as those on North Campus with laundry rooms, may be best
suited for installing clotheslines in various locations within the buildings. Students would also
need access to clothespins in order use the lines. Bags could be provided to each student in the
3
Hodge, Chelsea. (February 2009). Hanging It Out On Campus: A Guide to Providing Line-Drying Options
to College Students and Promoting Other Eco-Friendly Laundry Habits, Pomona College Report.
55
beginning of the academic year. Several other apartment-style dorm buildings have individual
laundry rooms (for example, Courtyards and South Campus Commons). These dorms would be
ideal for a drying rack rental program.
Any program should include an education program to spread awareness about the program and
explain to students the benefits of line drying clothes. The dorm Community Assistants and
Residential Assistants could work together to produce posters about the program and conduct
short information sessions on its benefits.
On an experimental basis, the students in EcoHouse might be offered the option of installing
outdoor clothes lines for their drying use.
Costs/Issues
Because of the low capital cost and short payback period, cost should not be a problem for
implementing this program. A rental system could encounter problems if racks are not returned
or are not kept in good condition. This could be avoided through asking students to leave a
deposit to be returned at the end of the year. Positive incentives could also be used, such as
giving out food or prizes during move-out day to students who return their racks.
The Office of Facilities Management and Residential Facilities would need to determine the
feasibility of installing racks in laundry rooms. Considerations should include fire safety laws,
the strength of the wall you want to install the racks on, and institutional policies.
Another potential problem is theft. Students may be concerned about leaving clothes unattended
to dry in a common area. The rack rental service for use within dorm rooms may be a better
option if theft becomes an issue.
Recommendations
The University of Maryland should survey students on their willingness to participate in various
types of “solar energy” clothes drying programs. This should be followed with a pilot program in
several dorms to gauge actual student participation. Ultimately, the university should implement
a robust clothes drying program covering all student dorms and laundry rooms that achieves the
goal of reducing student resource consumption at a savings to the university.
56
MEMO 12: Geothermal Heat Pumps
To: Ann Wylie
From: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
Re: Geothermal Heat Pumps
Current Status on Campus
Geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) take advantage of the fact that the temperature below ground
remains constant year round and thus cooler than outdoor air in the summer and warmer in the
winter -- and thus can buildings can use the Earth’s thermal energy to heat and cool them.
Depending on heating and cooling needs, GHPs move heat from ground energy sources or to
ground heat sinks. According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, GHPs move between three
and five times as much energy between the building and the ground than they consume while
doing so.
GHPs are mentioned (along with solar) as a possible alternative energy strategy in the Climate
Action Plan. The benefits of GHPs are that they use 25%–50% less electricity than conventional
heating or cooling systems and improve humidity control. According to the EPA, geothermal
heat pumps can reduce energy consumption—and corresponding emissions—up to 44%
compared to air-source heat pumps and up to 72% compared to electric resistance heating with
standard air-conditioning equipment. GHPs also maintain about 50% relative indoor humidity,
making GHPs very effective in humid areas. Also, shallow ground temperatures are relatively
constant throughout the United States and geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) can be effectively
used almost anywhere
.
Geothermal systems can consist of either vertical or horizontal loops. Horizontal systems require
more land area but are usually less expensive to install.4 Vertical systems often utilize boreholes
that are 150-250 feet deep, but designs are flexible. In locations where it is not possible to drill
several hundred feet deep, systems can consist of a larger number of shallower wells. Wells for
geothermal systems do not need to be directly adjacent to buildings, and they can be placed in
locations such as parking lots.5 There are currently no geothermal systems on the University of
Maryland campus.
Best Practices
The University of Wisconsin-Madison is currently constructing a new research building that will
include a geothermal heating and cooling system. The cost of the system is about $1.25 million,
and the system is expected to function for at least 50 years. It is estimated that the geothermal
system will reduce annual energy use by 10 percent.
4
Federal Energy Management Program. (2009). How to Buy an Energy-Efficient Ground Source Heat Pump.
http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/procurement/eep_groundsource_heatpumps.html
5
Scott, M. Personal Interview. 20 Apr. 2009.
57
The University of Illinois at Chicago is in the process of renovating several of its older buildings.
The first renovation of a 15,000 square foot building included the installation of a geothermal
system. After the first geothermal installation, the University began work to expand the same
system to two nearby buildings. Funding for the building renovations is being provided by
student maintenance fund assessment monies and grants from the Illinois Clean Energy
Foundation.
Ball State University’s Board of Trustees recently approved a $66 million plan to replace the
University’s four coal-fired boilers with a campus-wide geothermal system. The project will
involve drilling 3,750 boreholes. The Indiana General Assembly had previously allocated $41
million to replace Ball State’s current heating and cooling system. The University plans to
request that the money instead be directed towards construction of the geothermal system, which
should provide enough funds for the first phase of the project. The second phase of the project
will be funded with the remainder of the State funds, operational savings, and special repair and
renovation funds. Ball State is also hoping to receive stimulus funds, which would allow the
conversion to the geothermal system to be completed sooner. The University expects to save
about $2 million in energy costs each year once the system is complete.
Alternatives
The University could conduct a study to determine the feasibility of installing geothermal
systems on campus. This would include an analysis of the geology, building load requirements,
land area availability, and costs and efficiency gains. The advantage of conducting a campuswide analysis rather than an analysis of a single building involves the potential lower cost and
better efficiency of a centralized system.
The University could also consider implementing a small pilot project by installing a geothermal
system in a new building or as part of a building renovation. This would provide the ability to
evaluate the geology, measure actual energy savings, and develop a business case for additional
geothermal installations.
Costs/Issues
A three-ton geothermal heat pump system (large enough for a typically sized home) would cost
roughly $7,500 and the cost of drilling could be anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000, or more
depending on the terrain and other local factors. Also specific geological, hydrological, and
spatial characteristics of the land will determine the best type of ground loop (underground
piping for the system – there are a variety of options some cheaper than others).
It is generally easier to install a geothermal system in a new building than in an existing building,
partly because of the space needed for the installation. During construction of a new building,
vertical pipes for a geothermal system can be installed along with I-beams.6
6
Hwang, Y. Personal Interview. 24 Mar. 2009.
58
Since the steam required for heating is supplied by the University’s Combined Heat and Power
(CHP) plant, the efficiency gains from a geothermal system would likely be less than if a
geothermal system were replacing conventional heating and cooling systems. In addition,
because of the large upfront cost of geothermal systems, potential financing mechanisms would
need to be explored.
Recommendations
The University should conduct a design study to determine the feasibility of installing
geothermal systems on campus and consider installing a geothermal system in one building as a
pilot project. To address the challenge of the high upfront cost of geothermal systems, the
University should explore the option of including geothermal systems in energy performance
contracts. This approach would allow the University to use the energy savings from the
geothermal system to pay back a loan for the initial investment.
59
MEMO 13: Energy Performance Contracting
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Energy Performance Contracting
Current Status on Campus
Energy Performance Contracts (ESCOs) involve in principle the installation of energy saving
devices by an outside private company and the payment to the company for this service through
the savings in energy costs thereby generated. Both parties benefit financially if the resulting
energy cost savings exceed the costs of the energy efficiency measures undertaken.
The Maryland Board of Public Works recently approved a $20 million energy performance
contract with Johnson Controls for the College Park campus. The project is being financed
through the State’s lease-purchase program. Johnson Controls will install a variety of energy
efficiency measures in nine buildings, and the project is expected to reduce energy use by 22
percent in those buildings.1 The contract is for a period of 15 years with a two-year construction
period and guaranteed energy savings beginning in the third year. Constellation Energy has also
submitted a performance contract proposal that includes five buildings in addition to 11 dorms.2
The Maryland Treasurer’s Office provides financing for energy performance contracts through
the Energy Performance Lease-Purchase Program. Under the program, the Treasurer’s Office
obtains a loan at a lower interest rate than would likely be available to an individual State
agency. Lease payments are made from resulting energy savings. In Fiscal Year 2008, the
Treasurer’s Office procured a new source of funding for $60 million for State agency energy
performance contracts.3 In addition to the College Park project, approximately $12 million of
the original $60 million remains for financing other agency projects. The Treasurer’s Office is
currently preparing a new RFP/IFB for future energy performance contract master lease
financing.4
While the State can obtain financing at lower interest rates through lease-purchase agreements,
energy service companies (ESCOs) are also usually able to provide other sources of project
financing. For example, Johnson Controls has relationships with financing institutions and can
obtain lower rates for State agency energy-efficiency projects through municipal lease
financing.5
1
University of Maryland. http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/uniini/release.cfm?ArticleID=1852
Corry, S. Personal Interview. 11 Mar. 2009.
3
State of Maryland Treasurer’s Office. http://www.treasurer.state.md.us/DebtMgmt.htm
4
Johnson-Malcolm, K. Personal Communication. 24 Apr. 2009.
5
Barrett, R. Personal Interview. 20 Apr. 2009.
2
Best Practices
The University of Baltimore has an energy performance contract with Energy Systems Group
(ESG) and aims to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent by 2010. The upgrades are
expected to save about $11 million over the next 15 years.6 The University of Maryland Center
for Environmental Science (UMCES) Horn Point Laboratory recently signed a performance
contract with a subsidiary of Constellation Energy that is expected to reduce energy use by 15
percent through improvements to multiple buildings.7
The University of Arkansas signed a $20.9 million performance contract with ESG in 2008 to
reduce energy consumption and address deferred maintenance in 56 buildings. Improvements
will be made over a two-year period and are expected to reduce energy consumption by 30
percent. Under the contract, ESG will also work with university relations to implement a
communications campaign about energy-saving initiatives including information about
construction schedules, program benefits, and training on the use of the new equipment and
controls.8
The State of Illinois passed the Public University Energy Conservation Act in 2005 requiring
state institutions to pursue energy savings through energy service contracts – the bill contains no
explicit language on guaranteed funding from the State of Illinois.9 The State of Maryland could
adopt a similar measure, including the University campus in its scope.
Alternatives
One option for the University would be to complete the implementation phase of the Johnson
Controls performance contract and the approval process for the Constellation contract before
beginning any expansion of the use of performance contracts. This would allow the University
to monitor any hurdles associated with the projects and to develop a set of best practices for
future projects. These best practices might include educational strategies targeting building
occupants and strategies for coordinating the construction process in occupied buildings.
An alternative strategy would be to initiate a significant expansion of the use of performance
contracts within the next year. Since performance contracts involve issues such as building
operations and the University’s budget and debt affordability limits, the University could form a
working group to develop a plan for expanding the use of performance contracts while
addressing any such challenges.
6
University of Baltimore. http://www.ubalt.edu/template.cfm?page=3088
Constellation Energy. http://ir.constellation.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=377643
8
University of Arkansas. http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/14144.htm
9
Illinois General Assembly. Public University Energy Conservation Act.
http://www.ilga.gov/LEGISLATION/ILCS/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1065&ChapAct=110%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B
62%2F&ChapterID=18&ChapterName=HIGHER+EDUCATION&ActName=Public+University+Energy+Conserv
ation+Act.
7
61
Costs/Issues
Energy performance contracting provides a structure for the University to implement energy
efficiency projects without any upfront cost. However, the University only has verbal
clarification from the Maryland State Department of Budget and Management (DBM) that the
University will be able to use the energy savings from performance contracts to make lease
payments. According to a budget examiner at DBM, the lease payments for performance
contracts are included in the University’s budget request as part of its total lease payment
commitments.10 In addition, in a communication to the Department of General Services (DGS),
DBM stated that “several Maryland universities have already participated in performance
contracts and they have fully met their loan repayment responsibilities within their operating
appropriation.”11
Recommendations
The University should pursue a substantial expansion of the use of performance contracts to
reduce energy use throughout the campus and help meet the goals of the Draft Climate Action
Plan. The first step should involve arranging a formal meeting with the State’s DBM to clarify
any budget issues related to the University’s implementation of performance contracts. This
could involve encouraging DBM to develop formal written guidelines that specify that the
University is able to use the energy savings to make lease payments. The University should also
develop a set of best practices based on the implementation of the Johnson Controls project to
guide future performance contracts.
10
11
Uhl, C. Personal Interview. 5 May 2009.
Jabaji, H. Personal Communication. 23 Apr. 2009.
62
MEMO 14: State Budgetary Treatment of Energy Saving Investments
TO: Ross Stern
CC: Ann Wylie, Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: State Budgetary Treatment of Energy Saving Investments
Current Status on Campus
The University of Maryland, College Park and other USM institutions are in the midst of
executing various energy saving initiatives. At UMCP, the administration has adopted several
energy saving policies including participation in energy service contracts (as described in Memo
13) and a commitment to construct only energy efficient buildings. The entire portfolio of energy
saving policies should reduce energy consumption on campus and lead to a net cost savings from
reductions in energy use.
The University is composed of self-support and state-support units. The distinction is critical as
self-support units realize the benefits of energy savings directly through lower energy bills; statesupport units, however, are unable to realize the benefits of energy savings because funding for
energy comes from the state. For example, at least one self-support unit, Dining Services, has
signed an energy service contract. Under the contract an energy service company will audit and
retrofit the Diner and its multiple kitchen units. Because Dining Services is a self-support unit,
savings will be kept by Dining Services. For the state-supported component of the University,
the motives to participate in energy service contracts and other forms of energy savings are less
clear as any decrease in energy use (and cost) could met with subsequent state budget cuts of a
corresponding magnitude.
As a result, there is no strong financial incentive at present to reduce energy use on campus
among the state-supported components of the University. The lack of stronger incentives limits
how effective energy saving policies can be and will act as a barrier to needed energy reductions.
Restructuring of energy funding is crucial to carbon reduction efforts as well because the most
cost-effective reductions in campus greenhouse gas emissions will likely come through reduced
energy consumption as opposed to increased procurement of clean energy. Along the same lines,
the University will need to procure more clean energy to become climate neutral, which will
require substantial funding to generate and/or procure clean energy because of price premiums.
In general, decreasing demand for energy saves money while increasing the supply of clean
energy costs money. If major strides are going to made to address climate change in Maryland,
then the University of Maryland System and the State of Maryland as a whole need to provide
positive financial signals to encourage energy conservation in educational institutions – and thus
without the threat of cutting budgets when energy savings are achieved.
Best Practices
A new scheme for funding public colleges and universities based on carbon and energy
reductions is under development in Britain. Released earlier this year, the national level proposal
from the Director of Universities would increase capital funding for public colleges and
universities that decrease their energy consumption.1
Alternatives
A similar scheme could work in Maryland. The University System of Maryland via the State of
Maryland allocates funds based on performance measures, need, and projected expenses, among
other factors. Maryland would be a leader in the field of higher education if it included carbon
and energy reductions as performance measures and rewarded those institutions achieving
significant reductions (e.g., total or per capita) with additional funding that could be used for
other purposes.
An alternative to the reward-based funding system is to stabilize current levels of energy
financing through guaranteed baseline funding. The State is averse to guarantees of this nature,
but with something like a revolving loan program, Maryland would not have to raise taxes to
secure energy funding.
For example, if all USM institutions were required to participate in energy performance contracts
and financing were available, then in the long-run, public institutions would be spending less on
energy each year. The difference between past energy funding and current energy expenditures
could go into a fund that is accessible to only public universities. Most years the energy savings
fund would be used to help USM institutions invest in clean energy and in years with fiscal
uncertainties, the fund could be used to help institutions meet basic energy needs.
Costs/ Issues
With the need to balance the state budget and limit deficit spending, there is a case to be made
that energy savings from public institutions should go back into the general pool of state funds
and be redistributed to other important programs or used for debt service. Also, if a policy is
adopted that rewards colleges and universities for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and
energy use, then the state would have to generate additional revenue or cut program spending
elsewhere. Last, to require all public Maryland colleges and universities to participate in energy
services contracts may be expensive and a less cost-effective policy relative to the alternatives.
Every college and university is different and policies should be avoided that assume whats good
for one institution is good for all institutions.
Businessgreen.com. “Government funding to reward greenest universities.”
http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2234921/government-funding-reward
1
64
Recommendation
Regardless of the issues identified above, there is strong cause to reconsider and restructure the
present method for state funding of public university energy budgets. All of the institutions in the
University System of Maryland need to reduce energy consumption, but should be able to
achieve financial gains by doing so. The USM needs to use its collective power to make this
case to the State Legislature.
For now, the University of Maryland, College Park, is in a strong position as the flagship
institution of the State to bring the issue and potential solutions to the USM Office and State
legislators. The University should initiate dialogue with the abovementioned stakeholders to
develop policy options that would best address the energy budgetary issues at hand.
Additionally, the University should place this issue high on its agenda by lobbying State
legislators before the next General Assembly.
65
MEMO 15: Renewable Energy Certificates
TO: Student Government Association
CC: Ann Wylie, Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Renewable Energy Certificates
Current Status on Campus
As global leaders reach consensus that climate change demands swift and formidable action,
nations blessed with wind, solar, and geothermal resources have installed increasing renewable
energy capacity. Fossil fuel-rich nations like the United States, however, have struggled to meet
demand for clean energy as public opinion has turned against coal, oil, and other carbonintensive sources. On a state and local level, some governments and institutions in “dead zones”
bereft of green resources have purchased renewable energy certificates (RECs) to stimulate
renewable energy production around the country.
The University of Maryland is now considering the prospect of REC purchases. Without the
solar, wind, or geothermal potential to generate on-campus green electricity, the school can use
RECs to meet the demands for a decrease in carbon intensity mandated by the University’s draft
Climate Act Plan (CAP)1.
In April 2007, a majority of University of Maryland undergraduates participating in a nonbinding referendum voted to boost student fees by $12 per year “in order to fund the purchase of
clean, renewable energy.” 2 In September 2008, the Committee for the Review of Student Fees
approved the fee; students will begin paying the “clean energy fee” in fall 2009.
A REC is simply the official recognition received by an institution from purchasing green
renewal energy either directly from a utility or a REC broker. Although sold in kilowatt hours on
the market, a REC does not necessarily represent actual electricity3.
The carbon offset quality of a REC depends on the location of the project and the quality of the
local electricity. The more polluting the baseline scenario, the more potential for a wind or
hydro-based REC source to cut carbon emissions. It also depends on the season and even the
time of day; for peak load demand utilities might switch from cleaner sources to cheaper, more
reliable dirty ones. This variability makes accurate carbon offset calculations difficult for RECs4.
1
University of Maryland, Office of Sustainability. http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=CAP_feedback
2008 Campus Sustainability Report. http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/Campus_Sustainability_Report_2008.pdf
3
Carbon Offsets & RECs. http://greencampus.harvard.edu/cre/offsets.php (Website under construction)
4
What’s the difference between Carbon Offsets and Renewable Energy Credits, Anyway?
http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/whats-the-diffe.php
2
Best Practices
If University of Maryland chose to purchase RECs, it would join diverse institutional peers:
Yale, Duke, Harvard, the University of Utah, Penn State, Hamilton College, Trinity College, and
Warren Wilson College5. For example, Harvard can produce only so much green energy on-site
and therefore buys RECs from Sterling Planet at a discounted price, a Georgia-based certified
green energy broker that contracts with utilities like Connecticut Power & Light and Pepco
Energy Services6.
Alternatives
Green-e, a program administered by the San Francisco-based national nonprofit Center for
Resource Solutions, certifies utilities and green power brokers in America as legitimate business
actors. Other certification bodies include Environmental Resources Trust (ERT), Climate,
Community & Biodiversity Standards (CCBS), Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), and the Gold
Standard; however, these last four focus primarily on carbon offsets, not RECs7.
Green-e nearly monopolizes the REC certification industry, functioning as a catalyst for rapid
growth in REC commerce8. In 2008, Intel led the U.S. private sector in voluntary purchases of
Green-e Energy Certified renewable energy with a 1.3 million megawatt-hour (MWh) purchase
in January. PepsiCo ranked second; Mohawk paper third9.
In addition to REC purchases, some universities produce on-site renewable energy power to
reduce carbon emissions. Or, they invest in “carbon offsets.” Carbon offsets, unlike RECs,
include not just green utilities but energy efficiency measures, reforestation, and land use
reforms. Carbonfund.org in Silver Spring, Md. provides carbon offsets locally. A legitimate
carbon offset is sold by ton of carbon dioxide reduced. Businesses and universities first calculate
their carbon footprint then purchase as much as necessary to complete the offset, at a price of
$15 to $19 per ton in some recent examples.10
Costs/Issues
Skeptics of the REC industry worry about the potential for overly optimistic and perhaps in some
cases even fraudulent calculations. Potential REC purchasers should perform their own screening
process of a green power supplier before signing a deal. This screening process should examine
the potential supplier’s reputation in the industry, its balance sheet, SEC filings, bond ratings,
percentage of renewable energy actually supplied, and the percentage of new or incremental
5
Sterling Planet Colleges Fact Sheet.
http://www.sterlingplanet.com/upload/File/Sterling%20Planet%20Colleges%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf
6
Sterling Planet Partners. http://www.sterlingplanet.com/page/partners/; Carbon Offsets & RECS.
http://greencampus.harvard.edu/cre/offsets.php (Website under construction)
7
Carbon Offset Certification. http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/our_projects/category/Verification/
8
(“Our Mission.” Center for Resource Solutions. http://www.resource-solutions.org/about.html).
9
(“U.S. Businesses Purchase Record Amount of Renewable Energy in 2008.” Green-e Marketplace News Release.
January 27, 2009. http://www.resourcesolutions.org/pressreleases/2009/012709.htm).
10
Carbon Offsets & RECs. http://greencampus.harvard.edu/cre/offsets.php (Website under construction)
67
renewable energy supplied. A REC should only cover the portion of renewable energy that is
provide above a baseline (of renewable energy in the absence of the REC). Calculations of
baselines can be complicated and subject to dispute, sometimes depending in part on
hypothetical assumptions.
Critics often reserve their sharpest criticism for the “RPS loophole.” That is, in states such as
Maryland legally bound to increase green energy supply by a renewable portfolio standard
(RPS), green power purchased in good faith by institutions and businesses may simply contribute
to that standard and add zero additional environmental value. “Additionality” is the industry term
for the issue of whether green energy purchased actually leads to new net renewable increase in
production.
Recommendations
Fortunately, Green-e’s audit process for its certified suppliers is considered reliable and has
received increasing national acceptance.11 The Green-e logo cuts time, money, and frustration
from the REC screening process: it provides peace of mind for green energy customers in a vital
but infant industry. UMD should follow through with its REC clean energy purchasing plan,
examining all available Green-e options. Although Maryland produces no commercial-scale
renewable power, the university can lend its support to nearby wind projects in West Virginia
and Pennsylvania via appropriate REC investments.
(EPA “Guide to Purchasing Green Power” (September 2004) “Publications.” Green-e. http://www.greene.org/publications.shtml)
11
68
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR STORMWAT ER
69
The University of Maryland campus contains 1,200 acres within the Anacostia watershed and
larger Chesapeake Bay watershed. Both watersheds have benefited from federal environmental
legislation such as the Clean Water Act in addition to assertive state-level policy action,
including Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Fund. Continually under-addressed for various political
and technical reasons, however, non-point source pollution from agricultural and urban sources
remains a significant threat to these ecosystems. Both the Anacostia and Chesapeake Bay
watersheds are areas of significant environmental decline and objects of major government
cleanup efforts at present.
While the federal government and states grapple with how to best address non-point source
pollution, a number of municipalities including the District of Columbia and nearby
Gaithersberg, Maryland have stepped up to take independent, non-mandatory action. The District
of Columbia is currently formulating development criteria that will require newly constructed
buildings to remove and/or filter stormwater. The dispersed and intractable nature of non-point
source pollution requires decentralized attention; abatement needs to occur from the bottom-up
rather than the top-down.
The University of Maryland has taken some first steps in curbing its contribution to non-point
source pollution. In 2007, the University of Maryland Potential Water Quality Improvement
Study provided “a restoration framework for structural improvements to streams and SWM
[stormwater management] ponds for the University’s Capital Improvement program”1. As a
follow-up to this report, the Department of Facilities Management developed a Water Quality
Action Agenda. This Action Agenda, however, at present is in the list of still to be funded
projects of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), awaiting implementation.
Although funding has been short, a few University restoration projects have addressed storm
water runoff on campus. The first 10,000 gallon rain water cistern was installed on campus in the
Washington Quad. It collects and holds rainwater and uses a computer controlled drip irrigation
system to water the Quad’s native landscaping. A green roof was installed on 6,000 square feet
of Cumberland Hall and low-flow toilets, showers, and faucets are replacing older fixtures in the
residence halls. Bathroom faucets in the Student Union were replaced with sensor-driven units
to save water (70 percent less), electricity, maintenance costs, and to make bathrooms more
hygienic. The 100 new faucets in the Union will save approximately 1.2 million gallons of water
per year and 29 million BTU of energy from reduced hot water usage.
Yet, there remains much more that the University could do. With increased funding, a path
forward would be possible for stormwater improvements. Increased awareness from the campus
community is also needed. This section includes policy memos pertinent to the biggest
stormwater management issues on campus: attaining additional funding, limiting impervious
surfaces and integrating stormwater control infrastructure into future campus planning and
development.
1
Coastal Resources Incorporated. University of Maryland Potential Water Quality Improvement Study. May, 2007.
MEMO 16: Impervious Surfaces
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Impervious Surfaces
Current Status on Campus
The University of Maryland also has a high percentage of impervious surface cover. A 2007
study performed by Coastal Resources Inc. divided the College Park campus into 25 drainage
areas and found that the percentage of impervious surface cover ranged from 0 to 78 percent -with only five drainage areas containing less than 10 percent impervious surface cover.1
Impervious surfaces are any surface that does not permeate precipitation including blacktop and
roofs. When rain or snowmelt encounters an impervious surface, it runs downhill accumulating
unwanted chemicals or trash along the way before eventually reaching a stormdrain. Impervious
surfaces are a facilitator for pollution rather than a pollutant. Impervious surfaces also impact
the recharge rate of the Chesapeake Bay by creating frequent large outflow events following
storms and discounting the natural replenishment rate.
As a general rule, whenever the amount of impervious surface in a given area is greater than 10
percent, water quality begins to show signs of impairment.2 Maryland has a high percentage of
impervious surface due to heavy recent development, especially in the Washington, D.C. –
Baltimore corridor. The Chesapeake Bay Program estimates all of the sub-watersheds within the
corridor have greater than 10 percent impervious surface cover.3
Best Practices
Some colleges and universities have designed policies that attempt to address and reduce the
extent and impact of impervious surfaces. Portland State University, an urban campus in
downtown Portland, Oregon, has an estimated 79 percent impervious surface coverage. The
University-wide stormwater policy states that new impervious surfaces will not be created unless
sufficient drainage capacity is first in place.4 The end goal at PSU is to create no new runoff or
effectively, a cap on total stormwater runoff. At the University of North Carolina, a policy of not
increasing impervious surface by more than 1 percent (post-planned construction) has been in
place since 2008.5
1
Coastal Resources Incorporated. University of Maryland Potential Water Quality Improvement Study. May, 2007.
The Washington Times. “Maryland Find Fewer Brook Trout.” October 19, 2008.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/maryland-finds-fewer-brook-trout/
3
Chesapeake Bay Program. Impervious Surfaces.
http://www.chesapeakebay.net/impervioussurfaces.aspx?menuitem=14670
4
Portland State University. Stormwater Management Plan. May, 2005.
http://stage.www.pdx.edu/media/s/u/sus_Stormwater_Management_Policy.pdf
5
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. Profile of the University of North Carolina,
Chapel Hill. http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_113.php
2
Alternatives
New policies for addressing impervious surfaces can be technical or strategic. Technical
approaches such as low impact development (LID) can involve repairing or building new surface
to be pervious. LID can also involve repairing stormwater infrastructure to more efficiently
remove runoff. For example, green roofs can be installed on flat roofs and the vegetation will
reduce runoff or pervious pavement can replace the existing traditional pavement as it cracks and
wears. Replacing open parking lots with parking garages is an effective way of reducing
impervious surfaces, as well as having aesthetic and other benefits.
Strategic approaches could include self-imposed restrictions related to campus development
policy. For example, an institution could decide it will not develop drainage areas when this will
result in more than 10 percent impervious surface cover.
A number of policy opportunities are available for the University of Maryland to establish itself
as a leader in managing stormwater, and in particular, mitigating the impact of impervious
surfaces. The University must first evaluate its’ land use/development policies and manner of
campus growth. The largest and most immediate impact the University can make with regards to
impervious surfaces is to reduce further physical expansion of such surfaces, building
impervious surface considerations into development plans.
One option is to cap all drainage areas at current total impervious surface levels. Any additions
to impervious surfaces in one place would have to provide an “offset” somewhere else on the
campus. Another option is to prohibit development in areas with high current impervious
surface coverage and to develop only in areas with low impervious surface coverage. A third
option is to offset development in one drainage area by designating another area as an
impervious surface reduction area; this reduction area will not be developed and will be targeted
for improvements that will reduce runoff.
Regardless of the specific policy, a watershed approach is central because each watershed is
discrete and unique. A concurrent policy the University could adopt is to modify the stock of
existing impervious buildings and parking lots as they become outdated. For this to occur,
University administrators would need to set aside additional funds for Facilities Management to
procure and operate pervious products such as green roofs. An estimated 65 percent of
impervious surfaces are transportation infrastructure with buildings making up most of the rest.
Selecting porous asphalt or cement adds roughly 10 to 20% cost on a per unit basis or $2 to $3
per square foot.6 With financial support from University officials and a statement of policy,
Facilities Management could begin to roll out these “green” improvements.
Costs/Issues
There are hurdles to advancing any impervious surface mitigation or removal policy. First, the
University’s boundaries and divisions are not established by watershed and this will create a
6
Coastal Resources Incorporated.
72
major hurdle for policy implementation. Second, pervious surface technologies can be expensive
and require maintenance costs that are currently not factored into the budget. Third, there are
several stormwater concerns outside of impervious surfaces that may be worthy of attention and
funding first, namely the University needs to develop a 319 plan under the Clean Water Act.
Recommendation
As a part of the Anacostia and Chesapeake Bay watersheds, the University should support their
environmental improvement by its own sustainable actions.7 The University should adopt
pervious and sustainable technologies such as rain gardens when possible. The Facilities Council
should set an impervious surface policy for new construction on campus, limiting or prohibiting
net increases in impervious surfaces. The University’s next master plan should address
impervious surfaces in a substantive manner.
Maryland General Assembly. House Bill 34. Environment – Impervious Surface – Statewide Database.
http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/fnotes/bil_0004/hb0034.pdf
7
73
MEMO 17: Green Infrastructure
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Green Infrastructure
Current Status on Campus
Green infrastructure including rain barrels, rain gardens, cisterns, green roofs and ground cover
control stormwater by reducing and delaying peak flow during storm events. There is green
infrastructure on campus including several rain gardens, which have been created through
support from Facilities Management and UMD Professor Allen P. Davis. Given the University’s
position as a large presence and policy leader in the Chesapeake and Anacostia watersheds, there
is further cause to expand green infrastructure on campus through both green development and
green renewal of existing infrastructure.
Renovation and maintenance on a campus the size and age of UMD needs to occur frequently as
indicated by the $826 million backlog in deffered maintenance. Because investment in the stock
of existing infrastructure occurs regularly and at such a large scale, there will be many
opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure efficiently and with signficant payback.
Best Practices
The EPA outlines the benefits of green infrastructure on a macro scale (wetland and stream
remediation, forest expansion) and a micro scale (rain gardens, porous pavements, green roofs,
infiltration planters, trees and tree boxes, and rainwater harvest for non-potable uses like toilet
flushing and irrigation).1 The University of North Carolina has numerous green infrastructure
stormwater best management practices in place. UNC began the policy design process in 2001
and green infrastructure implementation began in 2002. The impetus for introducing green
infrastructure on UNC's campus came from a higher education bond. The University negotiated
with the town of Chapel Hill to incorporate green infrastructure techniques in new development;
new green infrastructure assists the town in complying with regulatory requirements. Green
infrastructure designs and specifications are now included in all new building projects at UNC.2
Alternatives
The University could adopt specific sustainability policies to encourage the following:
1. Placement or rain barrels around the campus which would be a source of water for
lawns and other purposes.
2. Further development of green roofs, both in new and in old buildings where feasible.
“Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure.” US EPA.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=298#benefit
2
AASHE. University of North Carolina Profile. http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_113.php
1
3. Installation of rain gardens at appropriate locations.
One potential policy is to adopt the Green Area Ratio (GAR), a green infrastructure
sustainability metric. The GAR can be used to set green infrastructure coverage and performance
goals for the campus. Attaining certain GAR scores can be mandated for all new development
and redevelopment. The GAR concept and a congruent GAR calculator, which ranks the
stormwater impact of various green infrastructure projects, were developed by a visiting
professor to the University’s Center for Smart Growth, Professor Melissa Keeley. Professor
Keeley’s GAR metric is currently being considered by the District of Columbia, Office of
Planning for implementation throughout the District.3,4
Costs/Issues
There are hurdles to developing a plan for increasing green infrastructure into campus
development and renewal. First, the backlog of maintenance on campus will deter sustainability
projects as they typically come at a price premium. Second, persuading Facilities Management
and the Facilities Council to take concrete action to mitigate stormwater will take time and could
face administrative hurdles. Afterall, a shift towards sustainable development and renewal will
require rethinking how facilities management addresses day-to-day problems – this will require
the buy-in of all stakeholders.
Recommendations
The University intends to grow in both scope and physical size, but development as we know it
has been redefined in recent years. From the University’s commitment to LEED certified and
carbon neutral buildings5, to the principle of sustainability that has been echoed in both the
University’s Master and Strategic plans6, the precedent has been set that development must be
sustainable. Although it has received less attention thus far, stormwater management should be
central to this University initiative as well, and more closely factored into future decision
making. The wide use and installation of green infrastructure should become an important part
of making the University more sustainable in the future.
3
Amber Lefstead. Analysis of Green Infrastructure Policy for Stormwater Mitigation in the District of Columbia.
May 2009.
4
Keeley, M. 2004. Green Roofs Incentives: Tried and True Techniques from Europe. Proceedings from 2 nd Annual
Green Roofs for Healthy Cities Conference, www.greenroofs.ca/grhcc.
5
University of Maryland. Draft Climate Action Plan. http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=CAP
6
University of Maryland. The Strategic Plan for the University of Maryland. May 2008.
http://www.sp07.umd.edu/PlanApril29.pdf
75
MEMO 18: Rain Barrels
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Rain Barrels
Current Status on Campus
Rain barrels collect water running off from roofs and other structures. By collecting water
during rain storms at peak flow times, the speed and magnitude of stormwater entering nearby
water bodies can be controlled. This reduces the potential for downstream flooding and erosion.
If the water is retained, it also reduces flows of chemicals, oil, fertilizers, and other forms of
pollution that would have accumulated in the stormwater. The water can also be reused for lawns
and landscaping, thus reducing University water demands and saving money. Residential
irrigation typically makes up about 40 percent of residential water use, a figure that may also
characterize the circumstance of the University.
Best Practices
Use of rain barrels is a common recommendation in plans for “low impact development” that
increasingly seek to limit and redirect stormwater in many parts of North America. In Toronto,
a city-wide Rain Barrel Program was begun in 1996 that allowed for residents to disconnect their
downspouts from the stormwater runoff system. The City of Annapolis, MD has organized rain
barrel design competitions with much success. Governor O’Malley has offered enthusiastic
support for the wider use of rain barrels in the State of Maryland wherever they are needed and
appropriate.
Alternatives
The University could adopt a policy to install rain barrels wherever feasible across the campus
and to use them for irrigation of lawns and landscapes. Alternatively, a smaller demonstration
program could be pursued in a more limited area that would explore the feasibility of rain barrels
and the visual impacts they would have. The University might encourage the design of rain
barrels to fit its own architectural circumstances – perhaps, like Annapolis, holding a student
competition for this purpose.
Costs/Issues
Rain barrels can come in many shapes and forms, often designed to be compatible with the
architectural and aesthetic circumstances in which they are being employed. The price of a rain
barrel ranges from $15 the cheapest versions to $200 for custom tailored larger versions. More
typically, they cost around $100 and hold around 55 gallons per barrel. One problem is that
heavy rains may overwhelm the capacity of rain barrels. A one inch rainfall on a 20 foot by 25
foot roof can generate over 300 gallons of water which would require 4 or 5 barrels to fully hold.
Another important issue is the compatibility of rain barrels with the historical architectural
designs around the University. It may require considerable imagination, and possibly create
higher expenses, to find rain barrels that are compatible with the University’s aesthetic standards.
The University architectural review committee might have to approve rain barrels and could
raise objections to their wide use on campus. However, rain barrels could be designed to be
mostly out of sight or otherwise visually unobtrusive.
Recommendation
The University should hold a student design contest to develop rain barrels compatible with
University architectural standards and other aesthetic considerations. An experimental program
of installing rain barrels should be undertaken in those areas of the campus that raise the greatest
stormwater runoff concerns, that require large amounts of water for lawns and landscaping, and
where aesthetic concerns may be less significant.
77
MEMO 19 – Construction Site Stormwater Management
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Construction Site Stormwater Management
Current Status on Campus
Facility renovation and especially new construction call for best management practices. Compost
filter socks, compost blankets, and compost filter berms are three key evolving organic tools for
stormwater control and filtration.
A compost filter sock is a compost-filled mesh tube placed perpendicular to sheet flow runoff1.
The sock, oval to round in cross section, provides a three-dimensional filter that impedes
sediment and other pollutants such as suspended solids, nutrients, and motor oil. Only filtered
water flows through the sock2. Compost filter socks may replace traditional stormwater barriers
like silt fences and straw bales. They can run along the perimeter of a construction site or at
intervals along a steep or rocky slope, where traditional barriers often fail. Installation does not
require soil disturbance.
Socks provide greater surface area contact with soil than do traditional barriers, reducing runoff
quantity and improving quality. Unlike old-fashioned methods, vegetated filter socks can remain
in place post-construction, providing a permanent organic anchor that even stimulates microbial
activity3. The mesh sock itself is the only waste, thus reducing labor and disposal costs. Perhaps
the filter sock’s biggest advantage over traditional practice is its filtering power. Compost retains
water well, but large volumes of water also pass through. Silt dams often form around clogged
fences or hay bale barriers4. The water passes through cleansed of pollutants: heavy metals,
nitrogen, phosphorus, oil and grease, fuels, herbicides, and pesticides5.
A compost filter berm is a compost-built dike placed perpendicular to sheet flow runoff. The
berm, trapezoidal in cross section, filters much like a compost sock. The compost blanket is
shaped as it sounds, in a thin layer over soil in disturbed areas to control erosion. The blanket,
properly applied, filters oncoming sheet flow, limits channelized flow, and grows vegetation on
the surface. The compost blanket is versatile, functional on rocky, frozen, flat, and steep soil
surfaces6. Compost filter socks, berms and blankets may be built from multiple materials:
municipal yard trimmings, food residuals, separated municipal solid waste, biosolids, and
manure7.
Before compost filter sock or berm installation, heavy vegetation should be cut down or removed
and uneven surfaces leveled to ensure uniform soil contact8. Areas with very large amounts of
concentrated runoff such as streams, ditches, or waterways are not suited for filter berms 9. The
same limitation applies for compost blankets. Also, blankets are not used on slopes greater than
2:1.
Best Practices
The compost filter berm and blanket offer similar advantages10. Sock filters and blankets are
often used in synergy with one another for the same construction site11. A University of Georgia
study found that properly applied compost blankets provided nearly 100 percent soil surface
coverage—essential to effective erosion control—compared to 70 percent to 75 percent provided
by traditional construction site methods like straw mats and mulches12.
Alternatives
As the University of Maryland expands its physical footprint, construction site runoff control
will increase as a sustainability issue. Compost-based construction site best management
practices could work better and cost the same or less than traditional techniques. University
stormwater managers could investigate compost technology and consider a pilot project as new
construction continues on campus. Compost filter socks, berms, and blankets at construction
sites could become part of a vision for sustainable physical development as much as other
stormwater control measures such as rain barrels, rain gardens, meadows, and other initiatives.
Costs/Issues
Costs for such new methods of construction site stormwater management vary widely depending
on the exact parameters of the construction project. The Gold Leaf Group in Brookeville,
Maryland provides the tools locally.13 Adopting new methods of construction site stormwater
management will require that University staff investigate and become familiar with these
methods.
Recommendations
The University should undertake a pilot project to examine the efficacy of new and possibly
improved methods of controlling stormwater runoff at construction sites.
79
MEMO 20: Selling Water Quality Credits
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Selling Water Quality Credits
Current Status on Campus
The use of “cap and trade” methods of pollution control is spreading to many areas of
environmental policy. The State of Maryland at present is developing a water quality credit
trading program designed to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and throughout the
state. The program, which is set for full implementation later this year, allows wastewater
treatment plants (WWTPs) to buy pollution credits from farms (and other entities) that have
adopted pollution reduction mechanisms known as best management practices. As a large and
influential generator of stormwater pollution, the University of Maryland could potentially
generate and sell credits through this program.
The University of Maryland contributes to nitrogen pollution in the Chesapeake Bay through
regular agricultural, landscaping and recreational (i.e., campus golf course) operations. Synthetic
and organic fertilizer is applied on campus and at agricultural research locations throughout the
state; some of the nitrogen in the fertilizer leaches into nearby streams and rivers after
application. The degree to which the University’s fertilizer applications impact local water
quality is difficult to quantify precisely, but general findings to date show University fertilizer
use negatively impacts local water quality.
A 2007 report from Coastal Resources Inc. found that nitrogen indicators, including nitrate and
TKN, were above EPA reference condition levels near the outfall to Campus Creek, which
contains discharge from the University golf course. Nitrogen indicator levels at other outfall
locations near campus were consistently lower than Campus Creek. In Fiscal Year 2007, the
University applied almost 400,000 pounds of synthetic fertilizer (22% nitrogen) and 2 million
pounds of organic fertilizer (1% nitrogen).1
The University could potentially reduce its nutrient loads to local water bodies and then sell
some part of this reduction to sewage treatment plants and other point sources within Maryland
(which would incur large costs if they had to make the reductions themselves) as a nutrient
credit. By means of this transaction, the other sources would provide the necessary financing for
University nutrient reductions that the University might not otherwise be able to afford.
Such “cap and trade” and other trading programs have become an important part of
environmental policy in recent years and have played a large role in recent global climate change
policy debates. It is recognized that they may significantly enhance the efficiency of
1
University of Maryland. Center for Integrative Environmental Research. Carbon Footprint of the University of
Maryland, College Park: An Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2002-2007).
http://www.cier.umd.edu/campus_climate_action.htm
environmental policies and thus reduce the total economic burdens of complying with
environmental requirements. With its faculty and other greater sources of expertise in such
matters, the University of Maryland is well position to play an important role in the development
and implementation of such concepts in the cleanup of the Anacostia River and Chesapeake Bay.
University sales of water pollution credits could provide pathbreaking examples that would set
the stage for wider use of such methods in the State of Maryland.
Best Practices
The State of Maryland’s new water quality credit trading program is broken up into two phases
with phase one involving the development of rules for point-to-point source trades and phase two
involving point-to-non-point source trades. Phase one is complete and point-to-point source
trades are acceptable while point-to-non-point trades will not be considered valid until
rulemaking is complete later this year.
The central idea behind the program is that farmers and other heavy fertilizer users can be
integrated into nutrient pollution control in the Chesapeake Bay in a legal and economically
efficient manner. Although phase one trades are now accepted, there has not been a single trade
in the State of Maryland to date.2 This is partly the result of the program being new and in the
formulation stage, but the biggest hurdle has been regulatory requirements for WWTPs. WWTPs
must install expensive nutrient filtering technology before they can participate in the program.
Because Maryland WWTPs are not presently under regulatory pressure to further control
nutrients, most WWTPs are holding off on installing the technology. However, as the state
population grows in coming years, WWTPs will not be able to maintain acceptable pollution
levels without improving technology and purchasing pollution credits through the trading
program.
The University of Maryland may have opportunities to participate in the water quality trading
program once point-to-non-point credit trading is approved and as WWTPs become more
interested in purchasing credits. The University would likely only sell credits as the program is
designed to have WWTPs be the primary purchasers of credits. Credits could be generated in a
number of ways, but how exactly is contingent upon the details of the final program and other
factors such as the cost of credit verification.
More resources on Maryland’s water quality trading program can be found at
http://www.mde.state.md.us/. An additional resource is Dr. Douglas Parker, located in the
department of agricultural and resource economics: dougp@umd.edu.
Alternatives
One way to generate credits could be to implement best management practices (BMPs) related to
campus landscaping or development. On the landscaping front, facilities management could
apply less fertilizer or fertilizer with less nitrogen and buffers could be installed along streams to
reduce runoff. For campus development, the trading program may allow credits to be generated
2
Personal Communication. Douglas Parker. March 24, 2009.
81
through low impact development. Because the program is targeted at farms, there may be
programmatic challenges to generating credits through non-agriculture oriented landscaping and
development.
The second method for generating credits could be through the golf course or other recreational
sites. In many respects, this falls into the category of landscaping, but because of the quantity
and type of landscaping that takes place on the golf course, it could offer more opportunities to
generate credits. For example, the golf course could shift when and where it applies fertilizer. In
turn, this could qualify as credit generation and the University could sell a credit to a local
WWTP such as the Blue Plains water treatment plant. The University golf course currently
executes a number of best management practices – to generate credits the golf course
management would need to go above and beyond their current efforts.
The final and most likely method for credit generation is through University of Maryland
agricultural experimental station farms. This is the best option because there are several BMPs
related to livestock management, crop production and other aspects of general agriculture; there
will be a number of ways to cost-effectively generate credits. Also, university researchers and
farm managers could adopt best management practices throughout state research farms to
generate credits. The major hurdle here is that researchers may not be able to adjust experimental
designs in a manner that makes credits valid.
Costs/Issues
Selling water quality credits would not involve direct costs to the University; rather, the sales
would bring in revenues to fund University stormwater and landscaping projects that might not
otherwise be financially feasible. The main cost would be the investment of time and effort of
university personnel in helping to pioneer a novel pollution control instrument in Maryland. An
educational process would have to be developed for University staff. Inevitably, numerous
hurdles would have to be surmounted, some of them no doubt unanticipated. While this might
be a cost from the viewpoint of the University, it might be a benefit from the viewpoint of the
State as a whole in providing examples of success that could then be more widely followed by
farmers and other parties statewide.
Recommendation
The University of Maryland may be eligible to sell water quality credits once the second phase of
the water quality credit program goes into effect. Selling credits is also contingent upon there
being demand from WWTPs for credits and the language of the final program rule. At this point,
next steps for the University should be to make a public statement that it is looking to generate
and sell water quality credits. Additionally, University environmental experts knowledgeable in
water quality credit trading should coordinate with staff in Facilities Management to explore how
this might actually occur. Whether or not the University will be able to directly generate and sell
credits through the program remains to be seen, but the University nutrient and landscape
managers as well as agricultural extension agents should look to get the University involved
through either direct trading or outreach to area farmers.
82
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILIT Y OPTIONS FOR LAWNS AND
LANDSCAPING
The University of Maryland has made a priority of preserving and enhancing its campus grounds
in a sustainable way as evidenced by several recent awards and designations. The University
Golf Course has been certified as an Audubon International Wildlife Sanctuary. The golf course
contains a diverse array of species that the university has committed to protecting. The Grounds
Unit of the Department of Building and Landscape Services ensures proper placement of plants
to avoid problems with insects and disease and incorporates native species into plantings. They
occasionally use pesticides, but ensure that they are used sparingly or substituted for organic
products.
In March 2009, the campus was designed as an arboretum and botanical garden by the American
Public Gardens Association and is the first campus to be recognized as a "Tree Campus USA" by
the ArborDay Foundation. The university conducted a five-year inventory of all the trees on
campus to facilitate sustainable landscape management. Despite these positive efforts, the
university has further opportunities to follow the steps of other peer institutions in improving the
sustainability of its lawn and landscaping services.
MEMO 21: Low-Mow Meadows
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Low-Mow Meadows
Current Status on Campus
The Department of Building and Landscape Services and the University Golf Course have made
efforts to improve their sustainability practices. The golf course, home to a variety of plants and
animals, has made improvements in the placement of plants to prevent insect problems and other
harm to the health of the plants. The University has have incorporated native plants into various
areas of campus, attempting to avoid pesticide use and use organic products when available.1
Another possibility would be to change the management practices in terms of the maintenance of
University lawn areas, including the extent to which these areas are mowed.
Best Practices
Low-mow meadow creation has been integrated successfully into the sustainability plans of
several campuses across the country. Cape Cod Community College, a small two-year school in
Massachusetts, has gained regional and national recognition for its experience with low-mow
landscape design. It cites the following benefits of the program:





prevention of the dumping of thousands of pounds of fertilizer into the Cape's aquifer
savings of thousands of gallons of irrigation water
elimination of 80% of lawn mowing
significant decrease in fossil fuel use and air pollution
encouragement of native plants, wildlife, and beneficial insects.
According to CCCC's Assistant Vice President for Facilities, John Lebica, the low-mow project
largely has been a success, but took careful planning and implementation.2 It began with an
experiment small plot of the college's land that was somewhat set aside from the most traveled
areas of the campus. For one year the campus stopped mowing the area and let it grow, resulting
in many native species coming back. The University administration then decided to let the
project continue further.
University planners consulted with state wildlife authorities to choose the best seeds for planting
and ceased mowing. They subsequently encountered problems with faculty and students when
the next semester began. The initial plan had been to only mow the area once a year around
October 15th. This meant that the grass was quite high in September when school began. The
1
Office of Campus Sustainability. (2007). Campus operations: landscaping. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from
Office of Sustainability website: http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=sustain_co_landscaping.
2
Lebica, John. Personal Interview. 5 March 2009.
85
solution was to mow the area a little earlier than suggested in late August. This helped to quell
much of the concern from the university community.
Over the course of the year as the grass grew back people got used to seeing it. University
sustainability planners also encountered some concern from the grounds crews who worried that
decreased mowing would endanger their jobs. In reality, the lower need to mow freed manpower
for projects he had been delayed.
Low-mow meadows also have been implemented at larger public peer institutions of the
University of Maryland. In the spring of 2007, Virginia Tech converted 13 areas of campus
totaling 35 acres into low maintenance native grass meadows and wildflowers. Virginia Tech
cites the following gains:

Impacts to greenhouse gas emissions: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has
calculated that standard maintenance of 1000 acres of lawn will lead to the emission of 18
tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) per year. Virginia Tech estimated that reducing
mowing of 38 acres in the first phase of the project to once per 2-3 years should reduce oncampus VOC emissions by over 1,300 lbs./year. Prairie restoration can also increase carbon
sequestration, but this effect is difficult to measure.
The machines that previously were used to maintain the area will have a longer life cycle
since they will need to cover less area.
Manpower can be diverted to currently understaffed projects on campus.
Reduced mowing will result in other resource savings. These resources can be reallocated
to other areas of campus where needed.
Educational opportunities will be provided through campus collaboration with departments
to create the meadow and signs posted around campus.




There have been some concerns raised. It is necessary to destroy healthy green grass with
pesticides and to be conscious of wind direction because the wind can blow unwanted species
such as dandelions and thistles over to the meadow. To combat pests, it is necessary to
chemically treat the site. Additionally, new lawnmowers may be required.
Alternatives
A site could be selected for experimental purposes in a low traffic area of the University. Wind
direction and potential for stormwater management should be important factors in site selection.
Native plant species in the Maryland Coastal Plain could be chosen to create the desired
aesthetic. The following timeline was used by Virginia Tech and could be a basis for a similar
project at the University of Maryland:






End of March: First mowing of actively growing existing turf
April 1: Existing turf sprayed with herbicide
April 15: Remaining turf that re-grows closely mowed
May 1- 8: Any remaining turf sprayed with herbicide
May 15: Scalp mow dead turf and begin seeding
June 1: Complete seeding
86

Year one and two: mowing to maintain 8” height as needed during establishment
Costs/Issues
In terms of costs, officials from both schools indicated that the monetary costs of meadow
conversion are minimal and limited basically to the cost of the seeds. The Virginia Tech project
cost has an estimated cost of $19,750 which includes seed mixes, herbicide, a specialized drill
seeder for native grasses, and signs. Costs for a University of Maryland project should be in the
range of a a few thousand dollars depending on the number of acres. A more ambitious project
would be somewhat more expensive.
Members of the campus community might be concerned about damaging the university's
aesthetic appeal from having large green lawns and about the potential for ticks and other pests
to thrive in meadows. Grounds crews may be worried about their jobs and create barriers for the
project. It would be necessary to conduct an educational campaign throughout the University
campus to explain the sustainability purposes of meadow creation. When the sustainability
purposes are more widely appreciated, the cultural response to meadows in place of lawns could
become much more favorable.
Recommendation
The University of Maryland should consider a trial program for creating low-mow areas of
campus in order to save university resources and minimize the university's environmental
impact.
87
MEMO 22: Low-Maintenance Grasses
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Low-Maintenance Grass
Current Status on Campus
The University of Maryland contains about 70% paved area and 30% green areas and semipaved areas. Most unpaved area consists of lawns cared for by the Department of Building and
Landscape Services and the University Golf Course. The university's lawns are of the species,
Tall Fescue or Festuca arundinacea. This variety of grass is adaptable to cool and hot seasons as
well as frequent foot traffic. Other characteristics include good shade tolerance, average required
maintenance, reasonable drought tolerance, and a mowing height of 3 inches. During mowing
season, an average of 16-24 men mow the grass for 7 zones. The lawns are mowed between
once a week and twice a month during the months of April through June.
The University Golf Course provides an excellent example of the potential for low maintenance
grasses on the broader campus. It has introduced several types of grass to the course that require
less water than previous species, particularly Bermuda and Zoysia grasses. Native grasses have
been allowed to grow back in some areas to create space for wildlife. Native grasses also require
very little maintenance. These grasses do not stay green all year, but the savings have made up
for the browner grass. The golf course lowered its water bill by 38%, a savings of $30,000 per
year.1
Best Practices
Several other universities have saved resources and promoted sustainability on their campuses
through converting to low maintenance lawns. Western Illinois University converted a part of its
main campus to authentic short-grass prairie and is evaluating another 2 acre project. Through a
program called We-Care, volunteers assisted with developing these areas.2
The Dakota County Technical College developed 10 acres of prairie grass and wildflowers and
plans to double this to 20 acres. The college lowered its mowing, emissions, and fuel use while
creating habitat for flora and fauna.3
1
Office of Campus Sustainability. (2007) Campus operations: water conservation. Retrieved April 27, 2009
from Office of Sustainability website: http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=sustain_co_watercon.
2
Western Illinois University 2007 campus sustainability leadership award application. Retrieved April 27,
2009 from Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education website:
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/w_illinois2007.php.
3
Dakota County Technical College 2008 Sustainability Leadership Award Application. Retrieved April 27,
2009 from Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education website:
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat1_98.php.
Alternatives
The University of Maryland could convert more areas of its campus to low maintenance grasses
using similar types of grasses and conversion techniques as the University Golf Course. The
program should not be a large financial burden and the subsequent savings would quickly pay for
the initial investment. Funding may also be available through the state or through the stimulus
package.
Because of manpower shortages, the university could consider bringing interested academic and
administrative departments together on the project. Volunteers could lend their expertise in areas
such as landscape architecture and plant science, or merely their hands in participating in the
actual conversion.
Costs/Issues
The main hurdle with planting new low maintenance grasses is overcoming preconceptions of
the campus community regarding how lawns should look. The University might have to conduct
awareness campaigns to show its occupants and the broader public how making a small sacrifice
in traditional lawn aesthetics can achieve large benefits in future lawn sustainability.
Recommendation
The University of Maryland should undertake an experimental program to convert a small lawn
area of the main campus to low maintenance grasses. Through this program, staff could get a
sense of the options available and the likely campus responses – the best species to plant, the
resource savings possible, and the opinions of the campus community with respect to such an
aesthetic change.
89
MEMO 23: Low-Carbon Landscaping
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Low-Carbon Landscaping
Current Status on Campus
The University’s Draft Climate Action Plan, released in April for comment, did not focus
explicity on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from campus landscaping. However, with the
University using 11,000 gallons of gasoline in fiscal year 2008 to run lawnmowers, Gators and
leaf-blowers, there are opportunities to reduce carbon emissions from campus landscaping
operations.1 Emissions from campus landscaping gasoline use, not including the University golf
course, totaled 98,000 tons of CO2 in FY 2008; application of synthetic fertilizer on campus also
increased the University’s carbon footprint. Emissions from these sources are small, but
achieving many small successes will be necessary if the University hopes to succeed in reaching
carbon neutrality.
Best Practices and Alternatives
Best practices for low-carbon landscaping from other universities and the larger landscaping
industry are available. In general, the most effective approach to reducing GHG emissions is to
substitute fuel-powered equipment with man-power and tools. Leaf-blowers and lawn-mowers
are notoriously inefficient with as much as 30 percent of the exhaust coming from this equipment
being unburned fuel.2 Depending on the job at hand, for example, simple rakes and brooms
might be just as effective as leaf blowers, though the job could take more time.
Another option is to replace old, inefficient equipment with newer, cleaner equipment. There are
a number of high-quality, small Gator-like utility vehicles on the market that run on an electric
charge.3 Replacing gators and other gas consuming equipment as it becomes outdated with
alternatively powered equipment will reduce GHG emissions and improve local air quality.
Finally, the simplest approach to reducing emissions may be to run the equipment less
frequently. Currently, lawns are mowed anywhere from weekly to monthly depending on the
location and recent weather. If half of the gas used by the Department of Building and Landscape
Services is to run mowers, then mowing the grass one-fourth less often (i.e., 3 times per month
vs. 4 times per month) would save close to 1,400 gallons of gas.
1
Ramy Serour. Personal Communication. May 5, 2009.
Eileen Stark. Natural Home. “Garden in Small Footprints: 10 Tips for a low-carbon garden.”
http://www.naturalhomemagazine.com/Garden-Guides/10-Tips-for-a-Low-Carbon-Garden.aspx
3
Cruisecar.com. http://www.cruisecarinc.com/
2
Issues/Costs
The University is expected to maintain certain aesthetic appearances that a more carbon neutral
set of practices may challenge. For example, mowing less often around the “big M” traffic circle
would be noticeable to visitors and could detract from the symbol. Another concern is labor –
mowing and maintaining the landscape less frequently will reduce demand for laborers even
while increasing the amount of other work done by hand (as opposed to gas-powered equipment)
would require more laborers. The University does not want to displace employees solely to
reduce GHG emissions. There is the potential that a combination of the two policies (increasing
man-power, limiting frequency of jobs) could require the same amount of man-hours. The
Department of Building and Landscape Services would obviously use discretion in executing
best practices and would need to be practical in achieving a carbon reduction.
Recommendation
Landscaping on campus consumes significant amounts of fuel to operate machines and maintain
campus aesthetics. The fuel consumption along with heavy fertilizer use result in a small, but not
insignificant, amount of carbon emissions. There are a number of best practices available
including using equipment less frequently, replacing inefficient equipment, and substituting gaspowered equipment with man-power. Next steps for the Department of Building and Landscape
Services are to explore options for procuring energy efficient equipment. Additionally, the
Department should evaluate whether any current gas-powered operations are unnecessary or
could be easily replaced with a man-powered operation.
91
MEMO 24: Reclaimed Water
TO: Ann Wylie, Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop
RE: Reclaimed Water
Current Status on Campus
The University of Maryland College Park campus uses approximately a half billion gallons of
water annually.1 A reclamation system based on reuse of water in dorms and other parts of the
campus would reduce the community’s risks during droughts and other water shortages, help to
defer future expansion of drinking water treatment plant and water supply facilities (thereby
saving potentially millions of dollars), help to protect water quality (by further reducing the
release of nitrogen and phosphorus in treated wastewater to the local watershed), and reduce the
amount of energy required to treat and deliver water to meet the University’s needs (thereby
reducing greenhouse gas emissions). Depending on the level of treatment, reclaimed water could
be used for potable or nonpotable purposes. A main likely use at the University of Maryland
would be watering of lawns and landscapes.
Best Practices
Existing Buildings: The University of North Carolina and the local water/sewage company
recently completed construction of a reclaimed water system serving facilities on the
University’s main campus.2 Reclaimed water, which has received advanced treatment at the local
wastewater treatment plant, is being used in two UNC cooling towers. The new system will
enable the University to reduce its use of imported water at cooling towers by about 660,000
gallons per day in Fiscal Year 2010 (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010). The University plans to
extend the reclaimed water system to serve additional cooling tower, toilet flushing, and
irrigation needs on the main campus.
New Buildings: The Oregon Health & Science University’s Center for Health and Healing
recycles gray water from showers and sinks and reclaims its “black water” (that’s the refuse from
flushing toilets). The system includes a membrane bioreactor in the basement that is basically a
small-scale sewage plant. The building uses 60 percent less water than most buildings its size,
and its outflow to the city sewage pipes is virtually nonexistent. The OHSU building
incorporates both rainwater and groundwater collection systems on the roof and underground,
which get mixed with the building’s own gray water and sent to the basement treatment system.
Reclaimed water is stored in cisterns before being pumped upstairs or sent outside to irrigate the
building’s grounds. Although the system was expensive to install, OHSU estimates that it is now
1
University of Maryland College Park, Sustainability Report.
http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/Campus_Sustainability_Report_2008.pdf
2
Retrieved May 10, 2009 from Sustainability at UNC.
http://sustainability.unc.edu/Water/ReclamationandReuse/tabid/78/Default.aspx
saving $70,000 to $90,000 a year. 3 OHSU estimates that it will take about 10 years to recoup
the costs of their system.
Alternatives
A lower cost alternative, short term, would be to install water reclamation systems in new
buildings only. Although not inexpensive, it would decrease the cost and allow it to be included
in construction cost.
A preferable, but higher cost option is to implement a university wide water reclamation system
modeled after UNC’s for use in the HVAC system and expanding the system to include
irrigation and toilet flushing.
Costs/Issues
Costs for a water reclamation system are substantial. The University of North Carolina invested
over $10 million in building the reclaimed water system over a period of 5 years.
Recommendations
The University of Maryland should explore the feasibility of installing a water reclamation
system and possibly apply for grants from the State of Maryland, EPA and other organizations to
assist with the funding. UMD should contract with a water engineer to determine how this water
reclamation system could be best constructed to ensure its efficiency and compliance with state
and national graywater usage regulations. Ideally, the project might pay for its costs in 5-10
years, establish UMD as a leader in water conservation and serve as an educational tool to the
local community about the benefits of water reuse.
Stimulus Bill Implications: The American Reinvestment and Recovery Plan included money to
fund water reclamation/reuse projects and grants may be available through the State of Maryland
and the Chesapeake Bay Commission since a water reclamation system would be beneficial to
the sustainability plans of both these organizations.
3
Retrieved May 10, 2009 from Interface Engineering. http://www.ieice.com/pdfs/case-studies/sustainable-world.pdf
93
MEMO 25 – Biochar
TO: Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Biochar
Current Status on Campus
The University of Maryland resides in the Anacostia River and Chesapeake Bay watersheds.
Nitrogen, phosphorus, and sedimentation have degraded the water quality in both watersheds for
decades. As a buyer and user of nitrogen-based fertilizer on a mass scale, UMD can affect Bay
quality through its fertilizer practices.
Biochar, an ancient but unexploited agricultural technology, offers a potentially carbon-negative,
high-potency fertilizer alternative to traditional materials. Biochar is a highly porous charcoal
derived from organic raw materials such as woodchips, corn husks, peanut shells, and chicken
manure14. Biochar requires less frequent application than traditional fertilizer. Biochar sequesters
nutrients and eases their access to plants. However much the nitrogen concentration of the
feedstock, the nutrient will likely release more slowly from the substrate as runoff than it would
from conventional fertilizer15. Biochar increases nitrogen use efficiency by crops16.
Best Practices
Rich, black soil known was “Indian dark earth” patches the Amazon basin. Indian farmers once
mixed charcoal and fish bones to generate soil nearly nine times as fertile as regular earth.
Recent academic research indicates that modern farmers can use a similar recipe for this biochar
concoction to produce similar results, reducing the need for toxic, polluting chemical fertilizers.
Delaware State University soil scientist Mingxin Guo recently found that biochar-enhanced
wheat yielded 45 percent more biomass; biochar nourishes the soil’s microbial life17.
Biochar could also function as a formidable carbon offset. It can sequester carbon for thousands
of years. According to Robert Brown, director of Iowa State University’s Center for Sustainable
Environmental Technologies, converting half the crop residues from one square mile of farmland
to biochar would sequester enough carbon to offset the emissions from 330 automobiles.
Johannes Lehmann, Cornell University biochar expert, highlights more benefits. He calculates
that by century’s end, biochar production could sequester 9.5 million metric tons of carbon a
year, enough to offset all today’s global fossil fuel emissions. The fertilizer would accomplish
this without taking land away from food production18.
Daniel Kammen, Nobel Prize-winning professor of energy at the University California,
Berkeley, recently selected BEST Energies Australian, identified biochar technology as one of
the top five “most visionary world-saving innovations out there” due to its potential carbonnegative effects19.
Alternatives
Research into the detailed pros and cons of biochar versus traditional fertilizer is ongoing.
Precise cost comparisons are difficult to make at present given biochar’s infant industry status.
The Carbon Char Group, a private biochar vendor, has grown a successful trial plot at Virginia
Tech. In 2005, researchers applied the soil amendment at 7 pounds per acre, and achieved a 20
percent increase in corn yield. Below ground, they recorded: a 17 percent increase in bacteria; a
43 percent increase in fungi; a 66 percent increase in flagellates; a 206 percent increase in
amoebae; and a 520 percent increase in mycorrhizal colonization20.
Costs/Issues
The University and other potential biochar experimenters would have difficulty finding the
fertilizer on the market. Once located, however, biochar vendors often give away samples of the
product for publicity.
Continued research will test biochar’s claim as a carbon sink. The energy intensity of biochar
production, transportation, and burial might make the technology carbon-neutral21.
Recommendations
Given its potential as a carbon sink and effective organic fertilizer, biochar deserves further
study by UMD, potentially via an experimental plot at one of its farms. In particular, the prospect
of using chicken waste—given the surplus of this Bay pollutant on the Eastern Shore—is inviting
as a raw material for biochar. The University might work with Virginia Tech to compare notes
before beginning such a pilot project.
95
96
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILIT Y OPTIONS FOR TRANSPORTATI ON
In FY 2007, transportation accounted for 34 percent of campus greenhouse gas emissions.1
These emissions came from three major sources2: (1) automobile commuters (54%), (2) air travel
(40%), and (3) the campus fleet (6%) which includes facilities management vehicles, shuttle
buses, and other campus-related vehicles. Influencing these major contributors can play a large
role in reducing the campus’ carbon footprint.
Currently, there are 23,016 parking spaces on campus and 23,143 parking permits issued.3 The
Department of Transportation Services has already enacted many programs to help reduce the
number of single-occupant automobile commuters. Bundle Packs allow commuters to purchase a
pack of 10 day passes for $25 instead of having to purchase a semester-long pass. The Smart
Park Carpool Program gives discounts to carpoolers but registered only 12 two-person carpools
in Spring 2008.4 There is also a “Green Permit” program that offers a 20% discount for all
commuter vehicles that meet EPA’s Green Vehicle Standard.
There are also programs to promote alternative means of transportation to campus. The
University runs 58 UM-Shuttle vehicles that serve 24 routes with ridership reaching 2.35 million
rides for the fiscal year 2008.5 The Metrochek program allows employees to purchase Metro
passes with pre-tax income, and a Campus Bicycle Plan is almost complete that recommends
changes on campus over the next three years to create paths, signage, and facilities that could
increase the current level of cycling on campus from 5% to 9%.6
The following memos offer several options for how the University can further reduce
transportation-related carbon emissions and otherwise improve the sustainability of its
transportation system.
1
Carbon Footprint of the University of Maryland, College Park: An Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pg. 5
Carbon Footprint of the University of Maryland, College Park: An Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pg. 25
3
Department of Transportation Services Annual Report Fiscal Year 2008, pg. 5
4
Department of Transportation Services Annual Report Fiscal Year 2008, pg. 10
5
Campus Sustainability Report 2008, pg. 16
6
University of Maryland Campus Bicycle Plan, pg. 4
2
MEMO 26: Student Transit Fare Discounts
TO: Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Discounted Student Transit Fares
Current Status on Campus
Automobile commutes to the campus account for nearly 20% of the University’s carbon
emissions.1 Various programs on campus have begun to address this issue through economic
incentives for carpooling, promoting parking less often, and increasing UM shuttle service.
The strategic plan promises that the University “will vigorously support new links to the campus
that increase accessibility and decrease congestion.” It also calls for a better connection to the
external public transportation systems in the area by suggesting an appropriate alignment for the
proposed Purple Line “through campus, with connections to University College, East Campus,
the College Park Metro, and M Square.” The strategic plan also states that the University “will
discourage automobile traffic to and from the campus.”
The Climate Action Plan calls for the initiation of two or more tangible actions to reduce
greenhouse gases while the more comprehensive plan is being developed. According to the
report, one of these is to “encourage use of and provide access to public transportation for all
faculty, staff, students and visitors at our institution.” The mechanisms for action promoted in the
climate plan focus on educating staff and students about the benefits of local transportation,
accessible housing options, and the Metrochek program that allows faculty and staff to purchase
metrocards with pre-tax funds from their paychecks. The Plan also recommends “increased use
of Shuttle-UM for commuting.” To do so, the plan recommends efforts to “increase the number
and frequency of commuter routes” and to “increase the number of Park and Ride routes and
frequency/timing of service”
Best Practices
A report titled “Unlimited Access” analyzed the use of fare-free transit services at 35 universities
across the country including George Mason University, the University of Illinois, and Ohio State
University.2 The system they describe involves the university paying a lump sum to the local
transportation agency based on expected student ridership. The average cost of the program
across the universities has been about $30 per student per year. Students, then, are able to ride for
free at any time to anywhere just by showing their valid student ID. Of the 35 universities
analyzed for the study, increases in student transit ridership increased between 71% and 200%
during the first year. Growth in subsequent years ranged from 2% to 10%. The possible benefits
to this program go beyond solely lowering carbon emissions. Offering free transportation to
students is also a recruitment benefit since students could conceivably have no transportation
1
2
Carbon Footprint of the University of Maryland, College Park: An Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pg. 5
http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/UA/UA.pdf
costs, therefore making it more affordable to attend college. It could also expand the affordable
housing supply to any transit-accessible area in the community.
Ideally, the University could forge an agreement with Washington Metropolitan Transit
Authority (WMATA) that allowed students to ride the entire system at a free or discounted rate.
The University has failed, however, in past negotiations with WMATA to develop a program
like this because the transit agency has traditionally been underfunded and unwilling to
participate on terms acceptable to the University. However, there have been no recent attempts to
reconsider the possibilities of a special arrangement for UMD student riders.
Alternatives
The University could renew efforts to negotiate an agreement with WMATA that would
provide free or discounted rides for students. One alternative would be to seek to negotiate a
UMD student fare structure comparable to senior citizens (65 and older) at present. Under
existing WMATA policy, senior citizens are now able to ride on Metrorail for half the
regular fare and for 60 cents on regular Metrobus routes.
Another alternative would be to limit any such discounted fare structure to bus routes that
directly served the University (or conceivably also student trips originating or ending at the
College Park Metro station). This might be more attractive to WMATA. If this were to
happen, the university might be able to eliminate some of its own shuttle bus routes that are
redundant with those of the transit agency. The shuttle fleet would then focus on park and
rides and certain, popular routes like metro shuttle and 113 University Towers.
For the general ridership, WMATA also at present has 7-day short trip passes for unlimited
travel on its rail and bus system during off-peak hours and travel up to $2.65 during peak hours.
If a ride costs more than the $2.65, then the rider must pay the extra exit fare out of pocket.
These passes cost $26.40 so if the University were to purchase passes for all seventeen weeks in
a semester, it would cost $448.80 per student. However, it might be possible to negotiate a
significant student discount from WMATA. Students might also share in the cost – paying say
$150 for a short trip pass that covered the entire semester – with the University covering the
remaining amounts necessary to enlist WMATA participation.
Weekly passes that are limited to Metrobuses are less expensive, now costing $11 per week. If
the University were to purchase bus only passes for all students for all seventeen weeks in a
semester, it would cost $187 per student. However, again, it might be possible to negotiate a
reduced cost for students. If the University offered an additional subsidy from its own funds,
students might, for example, pay $50 per semester for a pass entitling them to free Metrobus use.
If it made the program even more palatable and affordable, students might be given a choice
between either purchasing a parking permit or receiving the $50 bus pass, but they would not be
able to obtain both.
If the University is unable to reach an agreement with WMATA, the University could seek to
negotiate an agreement with Prince George’s “The Bus.” The Prince Georges system would
benefit by having a new steady stream of income while most likely only having to marginally
100
increase service since their buses do not run at full capacity. This program would be less
expensive for the University, but it would not provide as much service to students. Prince
George’s “The Bus” rides cost $1, and the University perhaps could negotiate to give students a
discount of at least $.50 per ride to make this partnership worthwhile.
Costs/Issues
WMATA is underfunded and, absent financial benefit to itself, has no real incentive to give
University of Maryland students free or discounted fares. The financial benefits to WMATA
would depend on the patterns of student use and whether the addition of Maryland students to
total passenger demand could be met by existing buses or would require any additional buses.
If the University subsidizes student ridership on Metro, it might obtain some of the funds by
achieving cost savings due to reduced service on the Shuttle UM fleet (which has a budget of
$4.7 million). Some of the current Shuttle UM routes are redundant with Metrobus routes.
However, the Department of Transportation Services would have a difficult time trying to
rationalize cutting back their routes when they are looking at expanding the scope of their fleet.
Recommendation
The University should reenter negotiations with WMATA seeking to negotiate an arrangement
that would make Metro rail and bus service available to UMD students for the same fares that
WMATA at present offers to senior citizens. Alternatively, the University should seek to
negotiate a reduced student price for Metrobus weekly passes (existing passes that cost $11 per
week and are available to anyone and allow unlimited free use during the week -- but on buses
only). The University should contribute some of its own funds to make such weekly bus passes
available to students for a full semester at a low cost – perhaps $50 per semester per student.
The University should work with other institutions of higher education in the Washington area to
coordinate an approach to WMATA for new student pricing policies.
101
MEMO 27: Student Parking
TO: Linda Clement
FROM: 2009 Environmental Policy Workshop
RE: Student Parking
Current Status on Campus
Given the large number of automobile commuters to campus, they are an important group to
influence in order to reduce the University’s carbon footprint. Surveys are currently being
undertaken to determine who parking permit holders are, where they come from, and what kind
of cars they drive. This information should allow the university to more accurately account for
the carbon emissions produced by commuters with parking permits.
The Department of Transportation Services provided 23,143 parking permits to faculty, staff,
and students in FY 2008. The revenue from the sale of these permits amounted to just over $8
million and approximately equaled the salaries, wages, and general operating costs for the
department’s parking division.1 This reinforces the Department’s notion that they are not
striving for a large profit but are solely seeking to cover costs for the service they provide. This
creates a troublesome situation, however, because the Department has conflicting goals of
catering towards single-occupancy vehicles for this revenue while also providing meaningful,
less profitable transportation alternatives such as the Shuttle UM.
The Strategic Plan indicates that the University aims to “discourage automobile traffic to and
from the campus.” However, there are currently few incentives for students to take alternative
means of transportation to campus. Parking permits are extremely affordable. For Spring ’09,
parking passes for commuter students were $107 and parking permits for campus resident
students were $206. A student who comes to class 4 days a week by car, then, is only paying
about $1.50 per campus visit. This compares with fees charged to visitors in University parking
garages of up to $12 per day.
If that same student took a bus on the Prince George’s system, it would cost $2. If they used a
metro bus, it would be $2.70, and if they used the metro train, it could cost up to $5.00 or more.
These costs do not even include the added time it likely takes when using public transportation.
Thus, the University is actually encouraging single-occupant commuting to campus through its
parking policies. (The only exception to this is Shuttle-UM. In the Spring of 2008 alone over
1,000,000 trips were taken by students on these shuttles.2 This number is on the rise, but is still
not comparable to the number of trips by single-occupant vehicles to campus.)
Best Practices
Washington State University prices parking permits at different levels for different zones on
campus based on the desirability of each zone. The permit price is based on three factors: (1)
1
2
Department of Transportation Services Annual Report Fiscal Year 2008, pg. 17
Department of Transportation Services Annual Report Fiscal Year 2008, pg. 16
proximity of the zone to major destinations on campus, (2) quality of the parking facility, and (3)
demand for the zone.3 Those who purchase parking for the most expensive zones are also
allowed to park in the cheaper zones.
The University of Wisconsin, Madison offers “PBC Flex” parking to its faculty and staff as a
replacement for long-term permits.4 Users of this program obtain a flex pass to hang on their rear
view mirror and register their car with a pay-by-cell company. Each time they park on campus,
they call an automated system and input how many hours they will be parking for and the
amount is automatically deducted from their account. While per-semester or per-year passes such
as offered at the University of Maryland do not offer any incentives to limit car trips to campus,
Wisconsin’s flex permits create a marginal cost of parking that provides a disincentive to use of
scarce parking space. The parking cost for the flex pass holders falls in between that of
purchasing a semester-long permit and paying the normal visitor parking fees.
Georgia Southern takes a non-economic stance in limiting parking. They have utilized a “Noncommuter Zone” in their parking permitting process since 2005 that prohibits students living
nearby campus from purchasing a permit.5 About 3,000 of the 18,000 students at the University
live within the zone and must ride the shuttle service, walk, or bicycle to campus. Parking, then,
is limited to the students who live further away and are limited in their transportation options.
Starting in the Fall of 2009, Bowdoin College in Maine will not allow Freshman to park on
campus.6 The campus, like the University of Maryland, is connected by many other forms of
transportation so the University finds it unnecessary to provide parking for these students.
Alternatives
The University could implement a parking permit policy that gives priority to longer distance
commuters. This would reduce unnecessary car trips from students living nearby who could
instead utilize the UM-Shuttle, local transportation, bicycles, or even walk to campus. As the
University moves forward with plans to better measure the carbon footprint of the commuters by
understanding where permit holders are traveling from, it will also enable the University to
determine boundaries for the establishment of a “Non-commuter Zone.” These boundaries
should correlate to the UMD bus shuttle system so that a place like University Towers, for
example, would be included on the list of places where students not allowed to purchase permits.
One study suggested a pilot program varying campus parking prices by time and location for a
sample of a few hundred students, faculty, and staff.7 This program would make it more
expensive to park in more desirable lots and keep correspondingly lower rates for less convenient
parking. This might induce some students to use buses or other alternative forms of
transportation. Even if students continued to commute, they could be redirected to more remote
3
http://www.parking.wsu.edu/utils/File.aspx?fileid=3408
http://www2.fpm.wisc.edu/trans/alt_flex_faq.asp
5
http://services.georgiasouthern.edu/park/noncomm.php
6
http://www.bowdoin.edu/news/archives/1bowdoincampus/005338.shtml
7
The Politics and Economics of Parking on Campus, Donald Shoup,
http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PoliticsAndEconomicsOfCampusParking.pdf
4
103
parking locations, reducing campus congestion. The University could provide improved parking
for students in satellite lots off campus that would be served by the UMD Shuttle fleet.
Costs/Issues
One problem with varying zones and prices for campus parking is that there will still be
inexpensive parking at the less convenient locations. To that end, it might not actually limit
commuting trips. Overall, however, there might be an increase in total parking revenue. This
money could be used to help fund programs aimed at improving alternatives to automobile
commuting such as student transit fare discounts.
There would be no additional costs to implementing the “Non-Commuter Zone.” However,
students required to use means of transportation other than their cars might be strongly opposed.
It might also be difficult for the University to ban parking for on-campus freshmen if this
affected student applications and acceptances. For any new satellite lots, it would be costly to
acquire property and then to run a shuttle service to the lots.
The significant role of parking fees in funding the Department of Transportation Services creates
a disincentive for the Department to limit parking, facilitate transit use, or otherwise discourage
automobile commuting. If parking is reduced in the future, alternative funding mechanisms for
the Department may need to be explored.
Recommendation
The University should review its pricing and other parking policies to make them more
sustainable. Parking fees should be used as a policy instrument to alter faculty and student
behavior to serve the University’s environmental objectives. Student parking fees should be
raised to levels more commensurate with the marginal costs to the University of providing
parking facilities and the environmental costs of student commuting. Satellite lots should be
constructed at locations off the campus to provide long term parking for those students living on
campus who have a car. If fewer cars are parked on campus, some parking lots should be
returned to lawns and meadows. The University should reduce single-occupant commuting to
the campus by implementing a “Non-Commuter Zone” based on proximity to campus and shuttle
routes. Parking permits would not be issued to students living in this zone. The assumption that
automobiles should provide the basic means of transportation for most students should be
revisited – in conjunction with changes in other transportation policies to enhance nonautomotive options.
104
MEMO 28: Bus Washing
TO: Linda Clement, Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Bus Washing
Current Status on Campus
The UM Shuttle service at the University of Maryland currently uses a bus washing system that
causes the UM Shuttle maintenance crew many problems. Washing on a large shuttle bus with
the existing system uses about 40-50 gallons of water. Much of the work must be done manually
through the use of tall brushes. Washing the buses with brushes can harm the paint and
accelerate aesthetic damage to the fleet. It is important that the fleet look its best since it travels
routes several miles from campus and serves as one form of advertising for the campus.
Another consequence of manual washing is that the crew cannot wash the buses in the winter.
Cold temperatures could turn the washing area into an ice sheet as well as be uncomfortable and
dangerous for crew workers. The wash water is currently drained away, but could be recovered
and recycled more efficiently. Positively, the maintenance crew is careful to use only
biodegradable, environmentally-friendly chemicals to wash university buses.
Best Practices
Sunbus, a company in Australia, revamped their bus washing system in 2008 and gained
considerable water savings. It installed two 23,000 liter rainwater tanks and two 3,000 liter
holding tanks to capture rainwater from the roofs of several large buildings nearby. The
rainwater is filtered and used in the automated bus wash and a recycling system captures 85% of
the bus wash runoff water to reuse. Before using this automated system, it took eight workers
about a day to wash ten buses. Now it takes only two workers one day to wash seventy-five
buses with much less water. The system also has saved electricity and been helpful in addressing
stormwater problems.1
Alternatives
The proposed East Campus development project will require moving the facilities that currently
house the Shuttle UM bus washing system. This presents a convenient opportunity to reevaluate
the efficiency of the system used before constructing a new one.
Additionally, permitting issues mandate that wash water be disposed of in ways that prevent
damage to the surrounding watershed. Implementing a more efficient bus washing system that
uses recycled water is one way of surmounting this problem.
1
Sunbus. (2008). Retrieved April 20, 2008 from Water at Work website:
http://www.wateratwork.com.au/Sunbus.
One option would be to establish a contract with an outside company for washing the
University's vehicles off-site. Another possibility would be for the University of Maryland to
invest in purchasing a more efficient bus washing system for the new facility. Such a system
would be able to recycle the wash water and save the university money. Maintenance crews
would be able to wash the buses year round without any risks to their own health or safety and
the shuttle buses would look their best all year. By eliminating the need for brushes, the bus
washing system could be used to wash many other types of vehicles on campus from other
departments that are not currently washed in this system because of risks to their paint.
The company Belanger manufactures a touchless, automatic large vehicle wash system called VMax. Maintenance requirements are minimal and the system has been shown to be quite
reliable. Large vehicles from a 30-foot dump truck to a 75-foot tractor trailer can be washing in
as little as 3-6 minutes. It can be programed with four different wash options at once to address
different types of vehicles' needs.2 Recycling wash water and using less water would have
benefits for stormwater management.
Costs/Issues
The main hurdle to surmount for this project is the high cost of conversion. According to Don St.
Armand, the university Department of Transportation's maintenance operations manager,
equipment to update the bus washing system will cost about $200,000. Additional changes
would also need to be made to the maintenance bay. However, Mr. St. Armand estimates that
through the use of this system, water use could decrease to 20-30 gallons per large bus, or about
a 50-60% reduction in water use.3
Recommendations
The East Campus redevelopment plan presents a timely opportunity to improve the efficiency of
the university's bus washing systems. Resources should be devoted towards a new bus washing
facility in order to reduce the university's water consumption and the amount of time and money
spent on cleaning all types of university vehicles.
2
3
Belanger, V-Max. http://www.belangerinc.com/v-max.
St. Armand, Don. Personal Interview. 25 March 2009.
106
MEMO 29: Traffic Alternatives for Campus Drive
TO: Ann Wylie, Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Traffic Alternatives for Campus Drive
Current Status on Campus
Campus drive is the major road through the university utilized by local buses, UM-Shuttle buses,
automobile traffic, pedestrians, and bicyclists because of its unique location at the heart of
campus. This clogs the street’s traffic as vehicles give right of way to pedestrians at numerous
crosswalks. Because of this, the traffic on the street moves inefficiently, lengthening bus trips,
increasing pollution, and decreasing fuel efficiency for the campus fleet. An improvement to the
traffic flow on Campus Drive could improve shuttle efficiency as well as provide a more
welcoming environment for pedestrians and bikers on campus. The Strategic Plan states that the
University should “discourage automobile traffic to and from the campus” and “decrease
congestion.” Altering traffic flows on Campus Drive could have a significant impact on these
goals.
Best Practices
Many universities across the country limit traffic onto inner-campus streets unless the proper
pass is provided. Automobiles are instead re-routed along the perimeter towards parking lots and
garages. The interior streets, then, provide an environment solely for pedestrians, bicyclists,
buses, and university vehicles.
Rutgers plans to introduce a new plan to create a pedestrian-first environment where car driving
becomes inconvenient.1 The heart of the strategy is to limit traffic along the central College Ave.
to only buses and pedestrians. They are also eliminating metered parking and several parking lots
along the street in order to push automobiles towards exterior lots. Students can then use the
shuttle service to get to campus.
As a broader example of how limiting traffic on a street can actually improve traffic flow, New
York City plans to close off Broadway to vehicle traffic. The City’s analysis of traffic patterns
showed that blocking off the street to vehicles would actually improve traffic and create a
pedestrian friendly space.2
Alternatives
One possibility to change the traffic flow on Campus Dr. would be to block the street off to
automobiles. The University could set up a security gate where vehicles enter from Route 1 and
force all non-permitted traffic right onto Paint Branch. There is an abundance of parking in that
1
2
http://www.dailytargum.com/news/campus-alters-traffic-routes-upgrades-historic-buildings-1.1649997
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/nyregion/26broadway.html?_r=2
direction which should be the ultimate destination for the cars. Campus Dr, then, could be closed
all the way up to Mowatt/Valley Drive. Any cars wishing to park in the lots on that side of the
University would have to enter from Adelphi. All University vehicles and those with special
passes would be allowed through these security gates and would find less traffic on Campus
Drive. This less congested street would make it much safer for the pedestrians walking through
campus.
Another option would be to limit the number of crosswalks and implement walk signals to better
regulate when cars or pedestrians have the right of way. Currently, a car or bus could be stalled
at a pedestrian crosswalk while a steady stream of pedestrians passes through, but these signals
would help rationalize the traffic flow.
Costs/Issues
Campus police and administration, in the past, have not been willing to block vehicular traffic on
Campus Dr. except during special events like football games. So, this limiting of traffic is not
completely unfamiliar, but it would require a major shift in the perspective of everyday
commuting at the University. Because of this resistance, it would be beneficial to start with
experimentation with this idea. By blocking off the street at different locations, the University
could measure how drivers adapt and how successfully the street is cleared for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and buses. The main cost of the program could be in street improvements along the
alternative routes.
In terms of adding crosswalk signals, this would be a negative for the pedestrians who are
currently given the right of way. As the campus looks to encourage a pedestrian friendly campus,
it seems that the University should actually be catering to the pedestrians. There is also the
possibility that the signals would not be strictly followed by the pedestrians.
Recommendation
A series of experiments during the school year should set aside days to test the effects of limiting
traffic on Campus Drive. On these days, varying distances of the street could be blocked off to
car traffic in order to determine how the campus community is affected by each of the changes of
traffic flow.
108
MEMO 30: Hybrid Buses
TO: Ann Wylie, Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Hybrid Buses
Current Status on Campus
The University of Maryland's Shuttle UM fleet currently uses 58 shuttle buses that run on
biodiesel. In Fiscal Year 2008, they used 240,777 gallons of B5 (biodiesel 5%) fuel. This equals
about 2,296 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Warranties on these buses currently only
cover up to 20% biodiesel in buses. In the long term, the university may want to consider other
transportation options in order to decrease money spent on fuel and avoid emissions of
greenhouse gases. One option currently being considered is switching to hybrid buses.
Best Practices
Several universities have begun introducing hybrid vehicles in their fleets, although diesel buses
are still much more common. For example, Ball State University uses biodiesel fuel in its shuttle
buses and has purchased one hybrid electric bus and several hybrid electric cars for its fleet.
Stony Brook University is awaiting the arrival of a hybrid bus that it purchased.1 The University
of Minnesota, Duluth partners with the Duluth Transportation Authority (DTA) to meet its
needs. The DTA currently has two hybrid buses in its fleet and has plans to add two more in the
near future. Replicating these small scale examples may be feasible at the University of
Maryland.2 Since only a few universities seem to use hybrids and only have a few hybrids in
their fleets, there may be some downsides to using this technology.
Alternatives
Several shuttle bus options are currently being used in fleets nationally, including diesel,
biodiesel, compressed natural gas (CNG) and hybrid buses. In order to assess the merit of
switching to hybrid buses, it is helpful to consider other alternatives.
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory compared CNG buses to hybrid buses in a case
study of a New York City fleet. An investment of about $9.4 million was required to convert
facilities for the CNG buses and $140,000 (plus resources to construct a crane for battery
maintenance) was required for the hybrid buses. The CNG buses had a fuel economy of 1.70
miles per diesel energy equivalent gallon, 25% lower than the comparison diesel study group
which had 2.28 mpg. Hybrid buses had a fuel economy of 3.19 mpg, or 40% higher than the
1
Implementation profile for University of Minnesota-Duluth. (2008). Retrieved April 20, 2009 from
American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment website:
http://acupcc.aashe.org/report.php?id=2104.
2
University of Minnesota, Morris 2008 campus sustainability leadership award application. Retrieved April
20, 2009 from Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education website:
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat3_114.php
diesel group. The hybrid buses averaged between 60-120% higher than the CNG buses in diesel
gallon equivalent units throughout the study. During this period, the CNG fuel costs per mile
were 45% higher than hybrid buses and 31% higher than the diesel buses. Hybrid buses used in
this study cost $385,000 each, or about 25-35% higher than a similar new standard diesel bus.
This New York City fleet announced an order of 500 new hybrid buses at a little less than
$500,000 each. 3 In summary, the hybrid buses had the best fuel economy of these alternatives
and the lowest fuel cost, but have quite high upfront costs.
According to Don St. Armand, the university Department of Transportation Service's
maintenance operations manager, the average diesel bus in the Maryland fleet gets about 2-2.5
miles per gallon. A hybrid bus would run on battery power at speeds up to 30 miles per hour. At
speeds above this level, the fuel engine begins to run. The maximum speed on campus is 20
miles per hour, thus theoretically most of the time the fleet would be running on battery power.
Under this assumption, the new buses would get 4.5-5.5 miles per gallon for shuttles that ran
primarily on campus. Other routes that travel further away would be less efficient.4
Hybrid buses currently have high upfront costs, but large long term savings in fuel use and
emissions. These upfront costs likely will come down over time as the technology evolves. The
University of Maryland should not convert the entire fleet at this time. However, the university
could benefit from piloting a program with one or two buses. From this program, the Department
of Transportation Services could estimate which routes would best fit a hybrid bus system and
how much the fuel savings for Maryland would be. It could also serve as a learning experience
for the Department staff for a more robust fleet conversion in the future.
Costs/Issues
Replacing one biodiesel shuttle bus with a hybrid bus could cost up to $500,000 per bus. A
standard diesel bus costs about $300,000. Natural gas buses are about $50,000 more than
conventional diesel buses. Natural gas buses also tend to have lower NOx emissions than diesel
hybrids because of different standards for diesel vehicles. Additionally, there are still some
uncertainties related to the fuel economy and emissions differences between hybrid and diesel
buses.
A University of Connecticut study performed road tests on two hybrid buses and two
conventional diesel buses. Results showed no clear difference in emissions between the two
vehicle types. Studies have shown lower emissions of smog components from hybrid buses
compared to diesel buses, but their methods have been called into question. The Connecticut
Department of Transportation found about a 10% fuel economy increase in hybrid buses
compared to conventional diesel. As these different technologies compete for lowest emissions
and best fuel economy, the university may want to wait on converting the entire fleet until this
data becomes conclusive.5
3
Barnitt, R., Chandler, K. (2006). New York City transit (NYCT) hybrid (125 Order) and CNG transit buses
final evaluation results. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center, U.S.
Department of Energy website: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/fleet_hybrid_cng_bus.pdf.
4
St. Armand, Don. Personal Interview. 25 March 2009.
5
Hybrid Watchdog: Hybrid Transit Buses Are They Really Green? (2007) Retrieved April 20, 2009 from
110
Recommendation
The University of Maryland should invest in one or two hybrid buses in order to gain experience
with this new technology and judge its potential for lowering the emissions and fuel use of
Shuttle UM. While the technology is not currently economically preferable, the university can
raise its sustainability profile through a pilot hybrid program and gain useful knowledge for the
future when potentially prices of hybrid bus vehicles come down.
Hybridcenter.org: http://www.hybridcenter.org/hybrid-transit-buses.html.
111
MEMO 31: Offsetting and/or Limiting Airline Travel
TO: Anne Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Offsetting and/or Limiting Airline Travel
Current Status on Campus
Currently, air travel accounts for roughly 13% of campus carbon emissions.1 These are flights
taken by University faculty and staff for business reasons, those taken by athletic teams, and
those for some student programs. It only includes flights paid for by the University directly, not
through personal expense or outside reimbursement. In 2007, the campus community combined
to fly over 60 million passenger-miles, but the Strategic Plan indicates that “the University will
develop a strategy for reducing unnecessary institutional travel.”
Currently, travelers are encouraged but not required to purchase plane tickets through one of
three travel agencies under contract with the University: Globetrotter Travel, Omega World
Travel, or Travel-On. First class airfare is not permitted and passengers are expected to take the
most direct, cheapest flight.2 Travelers must also fill out travel approval requests before their
travels.
Best Practices
The University of British Columbia reached an agreement with WestJet Airlines that provides
the University with a 2% rebate on all ticket purchases. This rebate then goes to a carbon offset
company thus allowing the University to offset the carbon emissions of flights at no extra cost.3
Yale has an arrangement with Amtrak where eligible personnel can receive up to 25% off of
train travel anywhere along the Northeast corridor between Connecticut and Washington, DC.4
These discounts are only available when purchasing through Orbitz and are available for both
business and personal travel.
Alternatives
The University could look into implementing an air travel carbon offset program. The price of
these offset could come from the same department funds that pay for the ticket.
The University might also follow the lead of the University of British Columbia and enter into
negotiations with their contracted travel agencies and airlines to see if the offset prices could be
included as rebates in ticket purchases.
1
Carbon Footprint of the University of Maryland, College Park: An Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pg. 5
http://www.dbs.umd.edu/travel/policy/umtravel/trav_guide.php
3 http://climateaction.ubc.ca/2009/02/26/ubc-reaches-deal-with-westjet-to-offset-travel
4 http://www.yale.edu/travel/ground/Amtrak%20info%20sheet.htm
2
The most direct way to reduce carbon emissions, though, would be to take action to limit flights
by encouraging alternative means of travel for shorter distance trips. For example, the University
could require train travel for trips within a certain distance or along the Northeast corridor where
rail is easily available. The University could also enter into a Yale-like agreement with Amtrak
that would make train travel more economically viable for business and personal travel. This is
important because the difference between the carbon emissions for a trip by rail and by plane is
significant. Carbonfund estimates that a 2,500 mile trip by rail produces approximately 992 lbs
of CO2 while the same distance by air results in 1,929 lbs. of CO2. Amtrak has partnered with
the Carbonfund organization to make it simpler for travelers to offset their miles. Since
University rail travel would be discounted through this program, the University could offer to
pay this extra price to offset the emissions produced. A $4.50 contribution is estimated to offset
Amtrak travel for two passengers roundtrip from Washington to New York.5
The University could also create incentives for video conferencing as an alternative to air travel.
Currently, video conferencing is provided at seven locations on campus and charged on a per-use
basis. In order to make this option more appealing, the University could offer departments an
option to purchase year- or semester-long passes to use these facilities. These would create a
strong demand for repeated use since the department would basically have unlimited access once
it purchased the pass. This would also provide a steady stream of income for the video
conferencing facilities.
It could also be beneficial to make sure personnel know how their air travel is contributing to
their personal carbon footprint. Faculty and staff could be required to maintain records and report
on their air carbon emissions. This would make clearer to faculty and staff the greenhouse
impacts they are having with their airline travel and hopefully help to influence their behavior
through personal responsibility.
Costs/Issues/Hurdles
An offset purchase program would come at a high financial cost to the university unless it
successfully limits the number of flights taken by the campus community. It might also be
difficult to negotiate a contract with a travel agency that would offer a rebate program for carbon
offsets such as the University of British Columbia has done. Even if the University was able to
negotiate such a contract, faculty and staff travel arrangements are not required to go through the
contracted travel agencies. To overcome this, the University could charge a carbon offset to
those who purchase tickets from a different source. This would strengthen the ties to the travel
agents, making it more likely that they would be willing to partner with the University, and
would also assure that miles flown would be offset.
Faculty and staff might have a hard time accepting a requirement to travel by rail along the
Northeast corridor. It would be more workable to alter their travel through a discount program.
As the agreement with Yale illustrates, Amtrak may be willing to negotiate with the University
to promote travel along the corridor. Some will still find it more convenient to fly, though. A trip
from Washington, DC to New York takes about an hour of flight time by air and 3 hours by rail
5
http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/land/amtrak
113
(the total travel time of course depends on the origin and final destination).. Currently, a round
trip is a similar price so it might take a discount on rail tickets to encourage that mode of
transportation.
Video conferencing would not always be a suitable replacement for direct personal contact. The
facilities also require staff and maintenance to run. If too many departments began using the
services frequently, the facilities might not be able to cope with the demand under their limited
budgets.
In terms of requiring extra informational reporting for faculty and staff of their airline travel and
resulting carbon impacts, there would be minimal extra financial cost to the University to
mandate this. However, it would require faculty time and other administrative costs. It is
unknown whether it would actually influence travel behavior.
Recommendation
The University should contact Amtrak and Orbitz to seek to negotiate a University discount to
encourage rail travel along the Northeast corridor. The University should also begin discussions
with their contracted travel agents to see if an agreement can be reached to receive rebates on
ticket purchases that would go to purchasing carbon offsets. If not, when these contracts are up,
the University should look to find a travel agent that will cover offsets. Since the University
does not require travel to be arranged through these agents, it should also collect a carbon offset
surcharge on all University reimbursed tickets not purchased through the travel agent.
114
CAMPUS SUSTAINABILIT Y OPTIONS FOR DININ G AND OTHER
STUDENT SERVICES
115
Dining Services, perhaps the most environmentally aware office on campus, sends all pre- and
post-consumer food waste off campus to be composted and has reduced the amount of waste
generated by cooking food to-order instead of preparing meals in bulk. Some of the other
improvements dining services has made include replacement of polystyrene foam containers
with biodegradable products and no longer selling bottled water.
In addition, the chiller for the air conditioner at the North Campus Diner will be replaced.
Currently, a sprinkler is used to cool the chiller in the summer. This upgrade will allow the
chiller to use 50 percent less energy.1 A solar hot water heater will be installed on the roof of the
North Campus Diner. This upgrade will save energy by pre-heating water used in dish
machines. Variable-speed exhaust hoods and air handlers will replace older, more energyintensive models. The variable-speed hoods and air handlers run at lower speeds at certain times
to reduce energy consumption. Replacing twelve hoods in the North Campus Diner would
decrease heat energy by 417 kBtu, cooling by 36,000 kBtu, and electricity by 26,130 kWh.2
Refrigeration units across campus have recently been replaced with energy star rated systems.
The next step is to replace the current refrigeration units (which use hydrofluorocarbons, a potent
greenhouse gas) with more environmentally-friendly ones. According to the EPA, Energy Starrated commercial refrigerators are, on average, 30 percent more energy efficient.
Dish machines that use electric heat will be replaced with steam-heated models, which would use
50 percent less water and energy.3 One such machine has been purchased for the North Campus
Diner, but two more are needed for the other dining halls.
Old conventional ovens are being replaced with combi ovens. The old ovens need to be heated to
250 degrees around the clock. When cold, they take 12 hours to warm up. These ovens have a
single heat source at the bottom. Inside the oven is a rotating carousel that holds baskets for
food. The carousel must be left running at all times or the baskets on the bottom, near the heat
source, will warp. The new combi ovens use three types of heat: convention (a heating element
that warms the sides of the oven), convection (a fan in the back of the oven with a heating
element behind it rotates heat within the oven) and steam injection. Convection heating uses 1/4
the energy of convention heat and has no heat-up time. These units cost $25,000 per stack (a
stack is two units on top of each other) and Dining Services would need 10 stacks per dining
hall. Overall, the new units would use less than 10% of the energy of the old units.4
1
Mullineaux, J. Personal Interview. 26 Feb. 2009.
Mullineaux, J. Personal Interview. 26 Feb. 2009.
3
Mullineaux, J. Personal Interview. 26 Feb. 2009.
4
Mullineaux, J. Personal Interview. 26 Feb. 2009.
2
MEMO 32: Bagasse Pricing and Procurement
TO: Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Bagasse Pricing and Procurement
Current Status on Campus
The University of Maryland Dining Services recently transitioned to bagasse take-out clamshells
from polystyrene take-out clamshells. Bagasse clamshells, which are composed of sugarcane
waste, are an environmentally preferable product because they are biodegradable and require no
toxic chemicals to produce.1 However, a number of challenges exist for the bagasse policy. First,
composting is not available at dorms; students must return used containers to dining halls.
Second, bagasse ($.18 per unit) costs three times more than polystyrene ($.06 per unit), and even
with a $.25 price on take-out meals, Dining Services is unsure how the bagasse policy will
impact their bottom line. This policy brief will examine bagasse procurement at the University
and propose options for improving the policy.
There are roughly 7,000 students with meal plans at the University of Maryland and a large
portion of students select $.25 take-out containers over free china regularly. In February 2009, 49
percent of dining hall transactions included clamshells and during FY 2008, an estimated 1.1
million (polystyrene) clamshells were purchased by Dining Services.2 With the transition to
bagasse, Dining Services has accounted for environmental costs. Still, Dining Services must deal
with the high accounting costs of bagasse including downstream waste removal. With Dining
Services paying $.18 per bagasse clamshell, the current price of $.25 per take-out meal may be
insufficient to offset the total cost of a take-out meal.
One option for making the bagasse policy more cost-effective is to purchase fewer bagasse
containers. Beginning in the spring 2009 semester, Dining Services began the Eat INitiative with
the goal of reducing consumption of clamshells by 15 percent. The Eat INitiative includes
posters on UM-Shuttles and text on the Dining Services website. Dining Services reported a 13.8
percent reduction in take-out meals per dining plan since the beginning of the spring 2009
semester.3 Whether or not the Eat INitiative can reach the 15 percent reduction goal remains to
be seen, but any reduction in clamshell sales will reduce campus waste and should improve
Dining Services financial standing. In addition to cost concerns, there are too few locations to
compost bagasse clamshells on campus. The Stamp Student Union has a compost bin, but none
of the dorms have compost bins and this is where a majority of students eat and dispose of
clamshells. The benefits of bagasse will not be fully realized until students have opportunities to
compost take-out containers at dorms and other non-dining hall locations.
1
Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/48728/bagasse.
Hipple, B. Personal interview. 25 Apr. 2009.
3
Ibid.
2
Best Practices
A preliminary search revealed no other institution of higher education charges for take-out
containers though it is unlikely UMD is the only institution with this policy. However, there are
interesting waste policies developing at college and university dining halls. For example, the
University of Florida recently removed take-out containers from three of its dining locations and
adopted a reuseable take-out container policy.4 University of Florida students can take-out no
more than two containers at a time and when returned, University Dining Services will wash the
container along with other dirty dishes.
Alternatives
Procurement of bagasse clamshells must become more cost-effective and composting on campus
should expand. An action Dining Services could take to make procurement of bagasse clamshells
more cost-effective is to increase the $.25 take-out meal price that has been in place for several
years. In order to get students to respond to the price signal, the increase would have to be large,
possibly over $.25. Increasing the take-out price would have a number of benefits in addition to
making procurement of clamshells more cost-effective. First, the fee increase should reduce
demand for take-out meals which would reduce solid waste. A second potential benefit is that
more students will eat-in which would create more face-time among students and help build a
stronger campus community.
Costs/Issues
Increasing the take-out price would have consequences. Although the china is free to students
there is a cost to Dining Services related to cleaning used china and replacing broken and stolen
china (both of which happen frequently). If the fee increase drives students to eat-in, then the
cost of maintaining the china will increase. Also, if more students eat-in, then both dining halls
would not be able to accommodate all students with seating. Because of the current seating
scarcity at dining halls during lunch and diner, Dining Services actually benefits from having
some students take out their food. The amount of seating on campus will increase when the
Denton dining facility comes online.
The complications presented by a take-out meal price increase suggest bagasse clamshells are
here to stay. The University must respond by reaping the co-benefits of having bagasse
clamshells through an increase in the number of compost bins on-campus. Such an action would
need to involve Facilities Management and Residential Facilities as these entities would be
responsible for maintaining compost bins. Expanding the number of compost bins around
campus would make students more aware of their waste habits, it could lead to other
environmentally preferable procurement changes on-campus, and new University jobs could be
created to oversee and maintain campus composting. One major concern with expanding
composting is that compost removal is more expensive than regular waste removal. The cost of
4
University of Florida, Office of Sustainability. http://ufsustainability.blogspot.com/2009/01/gator-dinings-greentakeout.html
118
compost removal could be reduced if the University invests in compost pulpers. Also, food
compost tends to smell, so providing and maintaining sanitary disposal centers will be important.
An alternative to increasing compost locations outside of Dining Services could be to create
some incentive for students to return bagasse clamshells to the dining halls where they can be
composted.
Recommendation
Dining Services has begun to address the waste problems associated with take-out containers
through its adoption of the bagasse clamshell policy and Eat INitiative. To ensure procurement
of bagasse containers remains successful, Dining Services should take steps to increase the costeffectiveness of bagasse procurement. The University as a whole, including Residential and
Facilities Management in particular, should ensure bagasse can be composted easily throughout
campus. The action steps for Dining Services should be to continue and/or expand the Eat
INitiative and monitor whether or not a price increase in take-out meals is necessary. Also,
Dining Services needs to communicate with Residential Management and Facilities Management
to examine opportunities for expanding the quantity and range of compost bins on-campus.
119
MEMO 33: Campus Composting
To: Linda Clement, Ann Wylie
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Campus Composting
Current Status on Campus
The University of Maryland's three main dining halls, the North Campus Diner, Denton, and
South Campus, compost their food waste, as does the Stamp student union. This includes preconsumer waste, such as peelings and other scraps, and post-consumer waste that is left on
students' trays. Currently, Dining Services pays to have the food scraps hauled away to be
composted by a company called Envirelation, which charges a service fee and a per-volume fee.
The service fee is $527.56 per facility per month, a total of $1,582.68 per month. The pervolume fee is $38.15 a ton. The four facilities that use this service produce about 30 tons of food
waste per month, combined. In March 2009, Dining Services' total composting bill was
$2,140.29.1
Relying on this service limits the amount of food waste that can be composted. Food waste is
collected by Envirelation every other day. In the mean time, it piles up on the loading docks of
the dining halls. Space and health concerns limit the volume of food waste that can sit on the
loading docks. Dining Services personnel are forced to put some compostable food waste into
the trash compacter, limiting the environmental benefits of the composting program. There are
also financial penalties for trashing compostable food waste: facilities management charges $55
per ton for waste removal, $16.85 per ton more than it costs to compost with EnviRelation.
Best Practices
Several other Universities around the country compost food waste from dining halls. At Cal
State Chico2, food waste is taken to the campus’ organic farm. When a delivery is made, food
from the farm is picked up and taken back to the dining hall, thus “closing the loop.” Dickinson
College3 also composts its food waste in a student-run organic garden. At Ithaca College4, food
waste from dining halls is composted on campus and used in landscaping. Arizona State
University5 has its food waste composted on a local farm. It buys some of the compost back to
use in landscaping.
Some large universities that produce substantial amounts of food waste use pulpers to facilitate
their composting efforts. These machines grind and dehydrate food waste to produce a pulp that
is much lighter-weight and less stinky than the raw food scraps. Colorado State University6, the
1
Envirelation, 2009.
AASHE, 2008.
3
AASHE, 2006.
4
AASHE, 2006.
5
AASHE, 2008.
6
AASHE, 2008.
2
University of Maine7, and the University of Virginia8 all use pulpers in their dining halls. If
composting on campus is infeasible at a particular university, pulping food waste can make it
easier to transport to an off-campus composting facility.
Alternatives
Purchasing pulpers for UMCP’s two largest dining halls, the North Campus Diner and South
Campus, would allow Dining Services to increase the amount of food waste that is composted. It
would also make composting more sanitary. In March 2009, these two facilities produced about
20 tons of food waste, making up the bulk of the 30 tons produced by all four UMCP dining
facilities that compost food waste. Each pulper, including grabber magnets (to reduce silverware
loss) and stainless steel troughs (to carry food waste to the pulper) costs $41,958. ($35,994
pulper + $1,484 grabber magnets + $4,480 troughs). Once labor is included, total cost of each
pulper comes to around $51,000.9
The pulpers that Dining services would like to buy are the Somat company's SPC-75S HT
model. This piece of equipment grinds and dehydrates food waste to produce a compound that is
lighter, more sanitary, and takes up less volume than raw food waste. Food waste enters the
pulping tank via the feed tray. There, it is mixed with water and ground into a slurry. The
slurry, consisting of 5% solids and 95% water, goes through a pipeline to the dehydrating
chamber. There, water is removed and the semi-dry pulp is discharged. The water removed
during the dehydration process is recovered and reused in grinding the next batch of food waste.
It is a closed-loop system with no plumbing hookup. According to the manufacturer, this system
can process 1,250 pounds of food waste mix per hour.
Purchasing these pulpers would create environmental and financial benefits. Greg Thompson
from Dining Services estimates that four times as much food waste could be composted if the
North Campus and South Campus dining halls were equipped with pulpers. Currently
Envirelation acts as a middleman, charging to remove our food waste and selling it to a farm
where it is composted. Dining Services could pay for the pulpers by eliminating the middle man
and selling food waste directly to a composting facility. The following cost-benefit analysis
shows that if pulped food waste were to be sold at $19 per ton, and disposal savings are factored
in, Dining Services would break even on the cost of pulpers and related expenditures over a 20
year period.
Campus Composting: Cost-Benefit Analysis for Pulpers10
7
Cohen, 2007.
University of Virginia, 2007.
9
Mullineaux, 2009 and Thompson, 2009.
10
Assumptions:
 Purchasing pulpers would allow Dining Services to compost 4x as much food waste in the Sept.-May
period.
 The cost of Envirelation's services remains at present rates.
 The pulping process uniformly produces an output with half the mass of the input.
 The University would need to purchase a $50,000 truck
 The truck gets 5 miles to the gallon and diesel costs $2.50/gallon
 The truck makes trips to the farm 5 days a week from Sept.-May. (Total: 200 trips/year)
8
121
Expenses:
Pulpers (2), equipment and
installation
Staff
Vehicle
Fuel
Total costs:
Income and savings:
Savings- Former
Envirelation Expenses
Savings- Former Waste
Management Expenses
Pulp Sales
Total benefits:
Annual Balance
Total Balance
2010
2011
2012
…
2029
2030
102000.00
70000.00
50000.00
2000.00
224000.00
0.00
70000.00
0.00
2000.00
72000.00
0.00
70000.00
0.00
2000.00
72000.00
…
…
…
…
…
0.00
70000.00
0.00
2000.00
72000.00
0.00
70000.00
0.00
2000.00
72000.00
24544.62
24544.62
24544.62
…
24544.62
24544.62
44550.00
10260.00
79354.62
44550.00
10260.00
79354.62
44550.00
10260.00
79354.62
…
…
…
44550.00
10260.00
79354.62
44550.00
10260.00
79354.62
-144645.38
-144645.38
7354.62
-137290.76
7354.62
-129936.14
…
…
7354.62
-4907.60
7354.62
2447.02
As an alternative to pulpers, Dining Services may want to consider purchasing in-vessel
composting systems. While pulpers grind and dehydrate food waste to facilitate off-site
composting, in-vessel systems compost food waste on-site in an enclosed unit. The advantage of
such a system is that the compost it produces would be ready to use for campus landscaping
operations. Dining Services has reservations about in-vessel systems because they are larger
than pulpers and space may not be available.
Another option is working with one of University of Maryland’s agricultural experiment farms.
The Clarkesville facility currently composts animal carcasses and could potentially expand
composting operations to include campus food waste. However, Dining Services has previously
proposed this idea and found that the farm is reluctant to take food waste due to health concerns.
Pulping the food waste could make it more sanitary and acceptable to the farm.
 The University's staff expenditures, for maintenance and transportation, would increase by $30,000
 The pulper would last for 20 years.
 810 pounds of food waste could be composted that would otherwise go in the trash.
 Per-volume pulp revenue: $19.00
Parameters:
 Pulper cost, per unit: $51,000.00
 Monthly food waste mass, pre-pulping, Sept-May: 30 tons
 Monthly food waste mass, pre-pulping, June-August: 0 tons
 Total annual food waste mass, pre-pulping: 270 tons
 Total annual post-pulping food waste mass: 540 tons
 Envirelation monthly facility charge: $1582.68
 Envirelation annual facility charge: $14244.12
 Envirelation per-volume charge: $38.15
 Pulp shipping distance: 20 miles
 Trash disposal cost: $55.00
122
Costs/Issues
Dining Services does not currently have funding to purchase two pulpers. Authorizing this
purchase would allow 810 tons of food waste a year to be diverted from a landfill and instead be
used to enhance soil productivity. In the long run pulpers save money on waste disposal and
instead allow Dining Services to sell food waste for a profit.
Additional expenditures may be necessary to maintain the pulpers and transport food waste to a
composting facility. The University may need to hire new staff and purchase a truck. Selling
food waste at $19 per ton would cover an additional $70,000 per year in staff salaries and the
one-time purchase of a $50,000 truck.
If food waste were composted at one of UMD’s agricultural experimentation farms, Dining
Services would not be able to sell it and it would therefore be more difficult to recoup capital and
labor expenditures.
Recommendations
Expanding food-waste composting capacity will allow Dining Services to become more
sustainable. Purchasing pulpers would allow more food waste to be composted in a sanitary
manner. Dining Services can recoup the cost of pulpers and related expenditures by selling its
food waste to a composting facility. In the future, cooperating with a University of Maryland
farm to establish an in-house composting program could be explored, but at present the farm is
not open to such a partnership.
Key Information Sources
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2006). Dickinson College 2006 Campus
Sustainability Achievement Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/dickinson2006.php
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2006). Ithaca College 2006 Campus
Sustainability Achievement Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/ithaca2006.php
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2008). Arizona State University 2008
Sustainability Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_136.php
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2008). California State University, Chico
2008 Sustainability Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_91.php
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2008). Colorado State University 2008
Sustainability Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_138.php
Cohen, S. (2007, September 30). Hilltop compost system cuts campus waste in half. The Maine Campus. Retrieved
May 7, 2009 from
123
http://media.www.mainecampus.com/media/storage/paper322/news/2007/10/01/News/Hilltop.Compost.System.Cut
s.Campus.Waste.In.Half-3001462-page2.shtml
Envirelation. Bill to University of Maryland Dining Services. 31 Mar. 2009.
Mullineaux, J. Personal Interview. 26 Feb. 2009.
Thompson, G. Email to Author. 18 Mar. 2009.
University of Virginia. (2007, May 4). Housing, dining honored for environmental efforts. UVA Today. Retrieved
May 7, 2009 from http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=1994
U.S. Department of Labor. (2009, April 17). Current Unemployment Rates for States and Historical Highs/Lows.
Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm
124
MEMO 34: Catering Waste
To: Linda Clement
From: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
Re: Catering Waste
Current Status on Campus
There are three types of catering at the University of Maryland: Good Tydings, Goodies to Go,
and orders that customers pick up themselves. Good Tydings is full-service catering with service
staff, glassware, and china. Goodies to Go is delivered by Dining Services to on-campus events.
Once food is delivered, customers are expected to set it up and serve it themselves. Dining
Services provides customers with tablecloths and disposable dining ware that are included in the
cost of Goodies to Go orders. Although it is not advertised, plant-based compostable dining
ware and compost containers are available by request. For pick-up orders, customers pay for the
quantity of disposable tableware and tablecloths that they desire.
Goodies to Go is used for many campus functions such as staff meetings, conferences, and
seminars. Attendees of these events often find that Dining Services provides them with an
excessive amount of tableware and tablecloths. Many offices around campus accumulate
countless cups, pieces of silverware, tablecloths, and sturdy plastic serving trays from catered
meetings and events throughout the school year.
Best Practices
Other universities around the country have committed to reducing their catering waste.
California State University Chico1 uses reusable china dishes and silverware in its catering, and
also offers the option of compostable dishes and flatware. The University of California Santa
Barbara2 and Santa Clara University3 also use biodegradable tableware. Ithaca College4 provides
compostable products as a standard for casual events and offers a zero-waste catering option with
reusable china, silverware, etc. Yale University5 developed sustainable event guidelines. Events
are awarded a bronze, silver, or gold sustainability rating depending on how many guidelines
they adhere to.
Alternatives
The University of Maryland's Dining Services department can become more sustainable and save
money by reducing catering waste. The Goodies to Go and pick-up services should be targeted
for waste reduction, as Good Tydings utilizes reusable items. A successful catering waste
reduction policy would focus on providing only the tableware that customers need and diverting
1
AASHE, 2006.
AASHE, 2008.
3
AASHE, 2008.
4
AASHE, 2006.
5
Bhushan, 2008.
2
used tableware from the waste stream through recycling and composting.
Dining Services could reduce catering waste in a cost-effective way by having Goodies to Go
customers order the quantity of tableware that they need for an event. The order form for
Goodies to Go could be revised to resemble the one for pick up orders, where customers specify
exactly how many plates, forks, spoons, etc. they need with their order and pay per item. Dining
Services should allow customers to return durable items such as serving trays, scoops, and ice
buckets. These items could then be reused, given away, or recycled as management sees fit. For
pick-up orders, customers already pay per item of tableware, but pick-up customers should also
be allowed to return durable serving materials for reuse.
Campus catering could also be made more sustainable by facilitating better disposal methods for
catering materials. The availability of compostable plant-based tableware and compost bins
could be more widely advertised. Customers should be able to indicate a preference for plantbased tableware on their order forms, and be charged accordingly. Customers should also be
able to request compost and recycle bins as part of their order, which would be collected by
Dining Services staff after the event. Eventually, Dining Services could exclusively offer plantbased tableware and provide compost service for every event that they cater.
Another option is to have reusable china, silverware, and glassware available for Goodies-to-Go
and pick-up customers to rent. To ensure that items are returned, Dining Services could require
that customers put down a deposit for reusable tableware, or bill the department in question when
they fail to return these pieces.
A University's catering service is one of its most visible elements to visitors, as well as
prospective students and faculty members. The University of Maryland's commitment to campus
sustainability is admirable, but it is important that this commitment shows in the image that the
University puts out to the public. Sustainable catering will show that the University is at the
forefront of sustainable higher education.
Costs/Issues
Changing catering policy so that Goodies-to-Go customers pay per item of tableware should not
impose additional costs on dining services. Additional labor needs created by such a policy
should be negligible.
Biodegradable tableware is more expensive than traditional plastic and polystyrene items, but
this should not present a hurdle if customers pay for each item. Customers may protest the
additional cost, but catering is a luxury item and it is important that catered events, which are
often attended by visitors to the University, reflect the University’s values and commitment to
sustainability.
Providing compost bins, and collecting used serving materials, may create additional labor costs
for Dining Services. Employees would need to collect compost bins after an event, as well as
sort and wash serving materials. Providing reusable china, silverware, and glassware for
Goodies-to-Go and pick-up customers would also create additional labor costs, as these items
126
would need to be collected and washed.
It is possible that the cost of these services could be included in catering prices.
Recommendation
Dining Services’ first step in reducing catering waste should be to revise the Goodies-to-Go
order form and tableware policy so that customers specify which tableware items they want and
pay per item. Initially, plant-based items should be offered, but eventually both Goodies-to-Go
and pick-up orders should exclusively offer biodegradable tableware. Compost bins must be
provided for catered events to achieve the full environmental benefits of plant-based tableware.
Allowing customers to rent reusable tableware and glassware is an option that could be utilized
in the future, but this would present a greater logistic hurdle. A change in catering policy where
customers order tableware items individually and a transition to plant-based materials is a lowhanging fruit to improve Dining Services’ sustainability that can be accomplished with little
disruption to catering operations.
Key Information Sources
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2006). California State University, Chico
2006 Sustainability Achievement Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/csuchico2006.php
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2006). Ithaca College 2006 Sustainability
Achievement Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/ithaca2006.php
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2008). University of California, Santa
Barbara 2008 Campus Sustainability Leadership Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_77.php
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2008). Santa Clara University 2008
Campus Sustainability Leadership Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_134.php
Bhushan, A. (2008, February 14). ‘Green’ events up for gold, silver, and bronze. Yale Daily News. Retrieved May 7,
2009 from http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23519
127
MEMO 35: Biodiesel
To: Ann Wiley, Linda Clement
From: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
Re: Biodiesel
Current Status on Campus
The University of Maryland produces 7,500 gallons of cooking grease annually in its dining
facilities.1 The used grease is removed free of charge by a company that makes it into biodiesel.
Dining Services considers this a good arrangement, as they would otherwise have to pay to
dispose of the grease.
The University’s shuttle fleet uses B5 biodiesel (5% biodiesel and 95% petrodiesel). The
Department of Transportation Services experimented with B20 (20% biodiesel) but found that
this voided the busses’ warranties. Lawn mowers also use gasoline and diesel fuel, while
lawnmowers that run on B20 are commercially available. Facilities management is looking to
experiment with biodiesel in its cogeneration power plant.2
Best Practices
A few schools around the country have biodiesel production facilities on campus, using cooking
grease or other feedstocks to produce fuel for vehicles and equipment. Chemistry students at
Lane Community College3 in Oregon make biodiesel from waste cooking grease, which is used
to fuel the campus boiler. The University of New Hampshire4 uses biodiesel made from campus
cooking grease to fuel some farm equipment and heat some greenhouses and farm buildings. At
Furman University5, the student environmental action group produces biodiesel from used
cooking grease and sells it at a discount to Facilities Services for use in their vehicles and
equipment. This serves as a fundraiser for the student group. The University of Tennessee6
received a state grant to construct two biodiesel production facilities: one for used kitchen grease
and one for alternative feed stocks. The University of Central Oklahoma7 makes biodiesel to
supply 100% of its campus diesel requirements.
Alternatives
Fueling the University of Maryland’s power plant with biodiesel made out of used cooking
grease from the dining halls can save the University money on fuel while providing for
environmentally friendly grease disposal. Making biodiesel on campus could provide a closedloop system for processing used cooking grease, save money on fuel, and provide students with
1
Thompson, 2009.
Kowal, 2009.
3
Hayward & Thompson
4
AASHE, 2006
5
AASHE, 2007
6
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 2007
7
AASHE, 2007
2
an educational experience by allowing them to participate in making the biodiesel.
Using homemade biodiesel to fuel the University’s power plant would produce substantial
environmental benefits.8 Facilities management also has three diesel-operated lawnmowers that
could be replaced with biodiesel-compatible models. Biodiesel is carbon neutral, as the plant
matter that makes up the feedstock removes the same amount of carbon dioxide from the
atmosphere as is emitted when the biodiesel is combusted. Carbon monoxide emissions are
about 50% lower9 in biodiesel than petrodiesel. Additional environmental benefits could be
gleaned from student participation in making biodiesel. Employing students, perhaps those
studying chemistry or engineering, in synthesizing biodiesel would create awareness of waste
reduction and build skills that would allow students to use their UMCP education in building a
more sustainable world.
There are two local organizations, founded by University of Maryland graduates, that could help
the University start producing biodiesel on campus. Biodiesel University is a mobile biodiesel
production facility that educates the public about renewable energy. The Green Guild Biodiesel
Group is a member-based group that promotes and produces biodiesel.
Cost/Issues
Based on the cost of a similar project at the University of Tennessee10, purchasing the capital
equipment necessary to make biodiesel on campus would cost about $100,000. Dining hall
cooking grease could only produce about 375 gallons of biodiesel a year.11 So, in order for the
University to get the greatest return on its investment in biodiesel production equipment, it could
also collect cooking grease from area restaurants. Many restaurants pay to have their cooking
grease removed, so they are likely to be receptive if the University offered to collect it free of
charge.
Another hurdle to using biodiesel for power generation is the warranty on the campus boilers and
emergency generators. Currently, the manufacturer’s warranty on the boiler’s engine does not
cover operation on biodiesel. Still, facilities management hopes to test the boilers on biodiesel
within a year.12
Recommendation
Facilities Management should purchase biodiesel production equipment and partner with
Biodiesel University or the Green Guild Biodiesel group to train students to make biodiesel from
cooking grease. To maximize the return on this capital investment, partnerships can be formed
with local restaurants to collect their used cooking grease as well.
Biodiesel produced in-house could be used in campus lawnmowers, converted diesel vehicles,
8
As compared to petrodiesel.
National Biodiesel Board
10
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 2007
11
Used cooking grease converts to biodiesel at a roughly 20:1 ratio. See San Francisco Chronical, 2009.
12
Kowal, 2009.
9
129
and the cogeneration plant. Using homemade biodiesel will save on fuel costs, contribute to
energy independence, and reduce the University’s carbon footprint.
Key Information Sources
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2006). University of New Hampshire 2006
Sustainability Achievement Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/unewhampshire2006.php
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2007). Furman University 2007 Campus
Sustainability Leadership Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/furman2007.php
Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2007). University of Central Oklahoma
2007 Campus Sustainability Leadership Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/oklahoma2007.php
Hayward, J. & Thompson, J. Biodiesel Project at Lane Community College. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.league.org/league/projects/sustainability/files/Biodiesel.pdf
Kowal, J. Email to author. 14 Apr. 2009.
National Biodiesel Board. Biodiesel for Electrical Generation. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.biodiesel.org/markets/ele/
San Francisco Chronical. (2009, Feb. 8). S.F. to convert guckiest cooking grease to fuel. Retrieved May 7, 2009
from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/05/BA5D15NJD0.DTL
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. (2007, July 6). Bredesen announces alternative fuel
innovation grants. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from
http://www.state.tn.us/environment/news/release/2007/Jul/altfuelgrants.shtml
Thompson, G. Email to author. 18 Mar. 2009.
130
MEMO 36: Bottled Water
To: Linda Clement
From: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
Re: Bottled Water
Current Status on Campus
Recognizing the environmental damage of bottled water, the University of Maryland's
Department of Dining Services recently stopped selling bottled water in dining halls. Bottled
water has been replaced by triple-filtered dispensing systems, which are available in the dining
rooms for students to fill their cups or bottles. However, bottled water is still sold in campus
cafes, convenience stores, and concession stands. During the Fall 2008 semester, Dining Services
sold 90,042 bottles of water.1
Bottled water is damaging to the environment because it creates excessive waste, it is energyintensive to transport, manufacturing the bottles releases pollutants, and the pervasive use of
bottled water for drinking can lead to neglect for the safety of tap water. Nationwide, only
23.5%2 of plastic bottles were recycled in 2006. Even when bottles are recycled, it would be
better for the environment if they were not used in the first place. Recycling is an energyintensive process that should be intended for waste that cannot be reduced. The wide-spread use
of bottled water is a relatively new trend and waste produced by the practice can be eliminated
by reverting to tap water use. Bottled water is also energy-intensive to manufacture and
transport. 17 million barrels of oil a year are used to manufacture water bottles.3 Additionally,
water can travel thousands of miles before reaching the consumer. According to a 2007 research
paper by Paul Fagiolo, then a Masters degree candidate at the University of Maryland School of
Public Policy, "The total energy needed to make, transport, and dispose of one bottle of water is
equivalent to filling the same bottle one-quarter full of oil." Manufacturing the plastic bottles
also releases harmful pollutants such as phthalates into the environment.
Tests by the FDA and others show that bottled water is not safer or healthier than good tap
water. In fact, the brand of water sold on campus, Aquifina, comes from municipal tap water. A
study by the National Resources Defense Council4 found that about a third of bottled water
contains substandard levels of substances such as coliform bacteria, arsenic, trihalomethane,
chloroform , or bromodichloromethane.
Best Practices
Eliminating bottled water on campus will ensure that the University of Maryland stays on the
cutting edge of campus sustainability efforts. So far, many colleges and universities around the
country have conducted public education campaigns discouraging bottled water use, but only
1
Hipple, 2009.
Container Recycling Institute.
3
Geis, 2008.
4
Olson, 1999.
2
Washington University in St. Louis5 has completely phased out bottled water sales on campus.
It's beverage distributor, Coca Cola Co., agreed to stop selling bottled water on campus by the
end of the Spring 2009 semester. Instead, students drink tap water from cups. Washington
University looked at the details of its contract with Coca Cola and found that it didn’t
specifically require that bottled water be sold in vending machines and cafes.6 Bottled water was
eliminated from all campus food service establishments except grocery stores by January 1,
2009, and from grocery stores by March 15th, 2009.
Alternatives
The University of Maryland could become a more sustainable campus by eliminating bottled
water sales. Instead, it could install triple-filtered water dispensing equipment at its cafes,
convenience stores, and the Stamp Student Union food court. This equipment will create a
convenient and palatable alternative to bottled water. Students could bring reusable bottles or
purchase a cup with their meal. Filtration equipment would make tap water more palatable and
allow Dining Services to gradually phase out bottled water sales.
Costs/Issues
Dining Services would face considerable financial and other challenges in this endeavor. In the
Fall 2008 semester, Dining Services' revenue from sales of bottled water totaled $114,163.7
Purchasing triple-filtration systems for all 11 campus cafes, 5 convenience stores, and the Stamp
Student Union's food court would cost $15,300.8 Another hurdle is the University's contract with
Pepsi. Pepsi is an exclusive provider of bottled water and fountain beverages on campus.
Bottled beverages other than water, such as milk, juice, and soft drinks, need not be purchased
from Pepsi, although Pepsi products must account for 75% of displayed beverages in campus
cafes and convenience stores.9 So, if bottled water were to be eliminated, Dining Services may
have to stock additional Pepsi products to compensate. Dining Services also strives to meet the
demands of their customers. Bottled water sells well because customers enjoy its portability and
convenience.
These challenges are considerable, though not insurmountable. In the 1970s, the University of
Maryland stopped selling cigarettes in campus convenience stores. Like bottled water, cigarettes
were popular and produced considerable revenue. However, at this time the health risks
associated with smoking were becoming increasingly well-documented. Cigarette sales were
ceased because the University felt a moral imperative not to encourage unhealthy behavior on
campus. Today, the University has made a commitment to environmental sustainability. It
should honor this commitment by eliminated bottled water sales and finding other revenue
sources for Dining Services. Phasing out bottled water sales after filtration systems are installed
would give consumers time to adjust to these changes, as well as allowing Dining Services time
to adjust to the loss of bottled water revenue. Selling reusable bottles and cups could also help
5
Daues, 2008.
Howard, 2009.
7
Hipple, 2009.
8
These systems cost about $900 each. (Thompson, 2009).
9
Hipple, 2009.
6
132
Dining Services maintain their bottom line. Beverage contracts are also renegotiated periodically
and it is important to keep in mind that the University is allowing Pepsi the privilege of selling
on their campus. To keep this privilege, Pepsi must adhere to guidelines established by the
university, including honoring its commitment to sustainability.
Recommendation
Dining Services should carefully examine its contract with Pepsi to determine options that are
already available for reducing and eliminating bottled water sales. When the contract is
renegotiated, Dining Services should ensure that it is not locked into an agreement to stock
bottled water.
As bottled water is phased out of cafes, convenience stores, and the Stamp Student Union food
court, water filtration devices should be installed, allowing customers to dispense water into
reusable bottles or purchase a cup. Phasing out bottled water will remove plastic from the waste
stream and show students, faculty, staff, and visitors that the University of Maryland is
committed to campus sustainability.
Key Information Sources
Container Recycling Institute. Plastic Recycling Rates. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.containerrecycling.org/plastic_rates.htm
Daues, J. (2008). University to end sales of bottled water on campus. Washington University in St. Louis Record.
Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://record.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/13006.html
Geis, E. (2008). Rising Sales of Bottled Water Trigger Strong Reaction from U.S. Conservationists. International
Herald Tribune, 19 Mar. 2008.
Hipple, B. Personal Interview. 27 Mar. 2009.
Howard, D. Email to author. 3 Apr. 2009.
Kramer, L. (2008). Eliminating Bottled Water Sales at Washington University by January 2009. Report prepared for
Dining Services Committee, Washington University at St. Louis.
Olson, E.D. (1999). Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype? Natural Resources Defense Council.
Thompson, G. Personal Interview. 10 Feb. 2009.
133
MEMO 37: Plastic Bags
TO: Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Plastic Bags
Current Status on Campus
The University Book Center gives away about 175,000-200,000 plastic bags to customers each
year. 1 Americans consume about 100 billion plastic bags each year, the production of which
requires about 12 million barrels of oil.2 Since plastics have only been around for about 150
years, the time it takes for plastics to degrade can only be estimated. However, most
environmentalists, scientists, and manufacturers generally agree that complete degradation can
take up to 1000 years.3 Because plastics are extremely lightweight, it is easy for plastic bags to
blow away and eventually end up in waterways. According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean
Policy, birds, sea turtles, and marine mammals can swallow debris including plastic bags,
interfering with their ability to eat, breathe, and swim.4
The Book Center recently ordered several hundred reusable bags to offer to customers as an
alternative to plastic bags. The Book Center will sell the reusable bags for $1.49 each.5 Barnes
& Noble has a contract to operate the University Book Center and has recently been awarded a
new contract. The company is losing money on the current contract, and therefore, finding ways
to save money is a priority for the store.
Best Practices
The New York University (NYU) bookstores have a “Say It -- No Bag, Thanks!” campaign to
reduce plastic bag use. The campaign encourages students to either refuse a plastic bag or
purchase a canvas bag from the bookstore. At the checkout counter, customers are asked
whether they would like a bag with their purchase. If the customer chooses not to use a bag, they
are given a wooden token worth five cents, equal to the cost of a bag, which they can place in
one of four bins, each of which corresponds to a non-profit environmental organization. The
store then donates five cents to the customer’s chosen organization. Customers can also choose
to purchase a canvas bag for $2, of which the Bookstore donates $1 to the customer’s chosen
organization. According to NYU Bookstores, since starting the program, the number of plastics
bags used per year has decreased from 300,000 to about 125,000.6
1
Gore, M. Personal Interview. 4 Mar. 2009
NRDC. (2008). NRDC Lauds Passage of New York City Council Legislation Requiring Groceries, Retailers to
Provide Plastic Bag Recycling for Consumers. http://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/080109.asp
3
Knight, Matthew. (2007). Plastic bags fly into environmental storm. CNN.
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/14/fsummit.climate.plasticbags/index.html
4
U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. (2004). Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Chapter
18: Reducing Marine Debris. http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/prelimreport/chapter18.pdf
5
Gore, M. Personal Communication. 28 Apr. 2009.
6
NYU Bookstores. http://www.bookstores.nyu.edu/green.html
2
The Colorado State University (CSU) bookstore recently implemented a “Bring Your Own Bag”
campaign that encourages students to bring their own bags or purchase a reusable bag for $1.
The bookstore provided a free reusable bag to every student who reserved textbooks for the fall
2008 semester and did not provide plastic bags during the spring 2009 rush period.7
Alternatives
The Book Center could expand on its recent decision to sell reusable bags to discourage plastic
bag use. This could include an informational campaign to encourage students to bring their own
bags or to carry out purchases in their backpacks using a slogan modeled after the NYU or CSU
campaigns. An important component of this type of strategy would be training checkout staff to
ask customers whether they would like a bag as opposed to automatically placing purchases in
bags.
There are at least two incentive strategies that the Book Center could use to encourage students
to bring their own bags. One option would be to give students a discount for bringing their own
bag (or just for declining a plastic bag), with the discount equal to the cost of the bag. A second
option would be a program modeled after NYU’s campaign where the Book Center would
donate money, equal to the cost of a bag, to an organization or set of organizations that students
help choose. The money could also go towards a “sustainability fund” for projects on campus.
A final possible action would be charging students for the cost of the plastic bag, which would
act as a disincentive to plastic bag use. This option would also have the benefit of saving the
Book Center money, assuming the change would not be reflected in prices. However, given that
the cost of the bag is so small compared to the value of most purchases, this strategy might not
have much success unless coupled with an information campaign.
Costs/Issues
Given that Barnes & Noble is losing money on the current contract, it would be difficult to
implement any measure that would increase costs. Any strategy to reduce plastic bag use will
depend on behavioralchange on the part of students. Shoplifting is a significant concern for the
Book Center, and the store’s policy during rush periods is to put every purchase into a bag.
Recommendations
The Book Center should commit to significantly reduce the use of plastic bags by expanding on
its recent decision to sell reusable bags. The first step should be training checkout staff to ask
customers whether they would like a bag as opposed to automatically placing purchases in bags.
This should be combined with an informational campaign and possibly an incentive for students
to bring their own bags. The Book Center should also consider setting a goal for reducing plastic
bag use and report on progress towards that meeting that goal.
7
Colorado State University. http://www.today.colostate.edu/story.aspx?id=235
135
MEMO 38: Local Food Procurement
TO: Linda Clement
FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy
RE: Local Food Procurement
Current Status on Campus
Dining Services at the University of Maryland provides roughly 5 million meals per year to
7,000 students with meal plans plus guests. Most food is procured via contracts with two
distributors – U.S. Foodservice and Coastal Sunbelt Produce. The notable exception to the justin-time style food distribution are the tomatoes and herbs grown atop the Diner.1 This memo
examines food procurement on campus, describes how Dining Services and the entire campus
community could benefit from additional local food procurement and offers ideas for expanding
local food awareness on-campus.
Without guidance or requests from Dining Services, food distributors will likely purchase the
lowest cost food items to meet the University’s menu needs. Although this reduces costs for
Dining Services, there are externalized costs to society unaccounted for in the price of food
including greenhouse gas emissions related to the distance food travels before consumption. For
instance, the average food item travels 2,400 miles before consumption, which can require more
energy than the food item actually provides.2 Moreover, an opportunity cost for Dining Services
associated with buying “long-distance food” is failing to support Maryland’s agricultural
community; investing in local agriculture makes the local culture, including farming, more
sustainable.
Dining Services must be recognized for its effort in supporting local food. Presently, Dining
Services purchases much of its food from within 500 miles including Delmarva chickens, bread,
and milk (supplied in-part by UMD cows) and it labels the origin of produce (e.g., Maryland
apples). Dining Services also has plans to expand production of tomatoes and herbs on the Diner
and potentially produce food at a University-owned farm in Howard County. The biggest
deterrent to expanding local food procurement is a lack of demand from students. If Dining
Services is going to realize the benefits of local food, then student interest in and demand for
local food must first increase.
s
Best Practices
Local food programs have been successful at institutions of higher education because most food
on campuses is selected by a centralized department and food systems can be useful for teaching
1
Personal Communications. Bart Hipple and Joe Mullineaux. March, 2009.
Pimentel D, Williamson S, Alexander C E, Gonzelez-Pagan O, Kontak C and Mulkey SE (2008). Reducing
energy inputs in the US food system. Human Ecology: 36 (459–471).
2
136
about community, economics and the environment. Cornell University Dining Services
purchases 20 percent of its food locally and has a bold definition of local limited to 100 miles.3
U.C. Berkeley and the University of Michigan also have strong local food programs. For
example, U.C. Berkeley has an alliance with the Bay Area Buy Fresh, Buy Local organization
and it has agreed to obtain a minimum of 10 percent of the University’s food locally.4 The
notable quality that both of these universities share, and which the University of Maryland
should learn from, is communication of local food efforts. Both the University of Michigan and
U.C. Berkeley list local foods on their Dining Services website while Maryland does not.5 The
University of Michigan posts local food available in its dining halls while U.C. Berkeley lists the
farms it is purchasing from.
Alternatives
One tool used by Cornell Dining Services that UM Dining Services could adopt is an annual
local food dinner supplied exclusively with seasonal, local food.
UM Dining Services currently hosts an annual Crab Fest (crabs presumably from the Chesapeake
Bay) in the fall semester. Given that this event coincides with the fall produce harvest, Dining
Services could easily seek out other Maryland food items to make it a true local meal. Because of
the size and popularity of the Crab Fest, Dining Services (with the help of the University) would
need only to develop a concurrent educational program to capture the attention of students and
promote local food on campus.
Costs/Issues
Local food typically comes at a premium, but additional costs can be absorbed by reducing waste
and investing in Maryland agriculture. To accommodate for the variability in local food, Dining
Services could alter menus to include food items that are in season. To better understand how
local procurement can be reconciled with current distributors, Dining Services could integrate
local food into special campus catering events (e.g., Crab Fest). Additionally, Dining Services
could participate in Community Supported Agriculture via a one-year contract with a local farm
as a pilot project to test how local food procurement could expand on-campus.
Recommendations
The actions Dining Services has taken to-date regarding local food procurement are
commendable and should stimulate make further progress with an increase in student awareness
and demand for local food. Local food procurement aligns very closely with the University’s
strategic plan and Dining Services should actively seek a path to making local food a value on
campus. Increasing student awareness is the first step. Clear action items for Dining Services to
increase awareness include holding special events with a local food theme (e.g., Crab Fest),
3
Cornell University, Chronicle Online http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/Nov06/LocalFoods.kr.html.
University of California, Berkeley, Cal Dining http://caldining.berkeley.edu/farmer_profiles.html
5
University of Michigan, Housing. http://www.housing.umich.edu/dining/freshmi.html
4
137
posting on the UM Dining Services website where food comes from (e.g., partner farms) and
establishing various local food indicators (e.g., what is considered local, what percentage of local
food we are striving to procure).
The University of Maryland has an excellent local food program, but it needs to actively promote
its efforts to get students’ attention and support. Once students see local food is an issue
important to the University, students will be more likely to adopt it as a personal value.
EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=min_measure&min_measure_id=4
2
Tyler, R. and B. Faucette. 2005. Organic BMPs used for Stormwater Management—Filter Media Test Results from
Private Certification Program Yield Predictable Performance, U.S. Composting Council 13 th Annual Conference
and Trade Show, January 2005, San Antonio, Texas.
3
Alexander, R. 2003. Standard Specifications for Compost for Erosion/Sediment Control, developed for the
Recycled Materials Resource Center , University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire. Available at
[www.alexassoc.net].; Faucette, B. and M. Ruhlman. 2004. Stream Bank Stabilization Utilizing Compost. BioCycle,
January 2004, page 24.
4
EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=min_measure&min_measure_id=4
5
USEPA. 1998. An Analysis of Composting as an Environmental Remediation Technology. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W), EPA530-R-98-008, April 1998.
6
Risse, M. and B. Faucette. 2001. Compost Utilization for Erosion Control, University of Georgia, Cooperative
Extension Service, Athens, Georgia.
7
EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Compost Blankets
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton=detail&bmp=118&minme
asure=4
8
EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPS – Filter Socks.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton=detail&bmp=120&minme
asure=4
9
EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Compost Filter Berms.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton=detail&bmp=119&minme
asure=4
10
EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Compost Filter Berms.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton=detail&bmp=119&minme
asure=4; USEPA. 1998. An Analysis of Composting as an Environmental Remediation Technology. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W), EPA530-R-98-008, April 1998.
11
EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control.
http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=min_measure&min_measure_id=4
12
Faucette, B. and M. Risse. 2002. Controlling Erosion with Compost and Mulch. BioCycle, June 2002, pages 26–
28.
13
Gold Leaf Group. http://www.goldleafgrp.com/
14
Ansari, Azadeh. “Can ‘biochar’ save the planet?” CNN.com. updated 10:56AM EDT;
Tuesday March 31, 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/03/30/biochar.warming.energy/index.html
15
Interview with Lucy Coggin, horticulturist as Lewis Ginter Botanical Garden in Richmond, Virginia
16
A Biological Tool for Reducing Input Costs. Carbon Char Group. http://www.carbonchar.com/plant-performance
1
138
17
Whitford, Ben. “Farming with biochar could produce better crops and combat climate change.” Plenty Magazine.
Posted on August 21, 2008 at 10:00AM.
http://www.plentymag.com/features/2008/08/smoking_grass_print.php
18
“Using soil to lock up carbon could help offset global warming.” PhysOrg.com. May 14, 2007.
http://www.physorg.com/news98375815.html
19
“Discovery Science Reveals Australian Technology As Best Carbon Outcome For Waste.” BEST Energies, Inc.
January 1, 2009.
http://www.bestenergies.com/pressreleases/BESTenergies_pressrelease_20090101.pdf
20
A Biological Tool for Reducing Input Costs. Carbon Char Group http://www.carbonchar.com/plant-performance
21
Whitford, Ben.
139