President’s Task Force on Climate Change Appendices President’s Task Force on Climate Change Appendices Table of Contents Appendix A: Working Group Members ................................................................................... 59 Appendix B: Greenhouse Gas Inventory ................................................................................ 63 Appendix C: Wedge Analysis, Data and Assumptions ............................................................ 77 Appendix D.1: New Building/Renovation Design Guidelines .................................................. 81 Appendix D.2: Existing Building Analysis ................................................................................ 85 Appendix D.3: Central Plant Concepts ................................................................................... 89 Appendix D.4 Combined Heat and Power .............................................................................. 91 Appendix D.5: Building Electricity Usage ............................................................................... 93 Appendix D.6: Recent Greenhouse Gas Reductions .............................................................. 97 Appendix E: Evaluating Renewable Energy Credits as Reduction Strategy ......................... 101 Appendix F: Current Activities that Reflect Community Partnerships Goals ........................ 107 Appendix G: Sample Future Community Projects ................................................................ 109 Appendix H: JHU Faculty with Sustainability Expertise ........................................................ 113 Appendix I: Sustainability and Climate Efforts at Peer Universities .................................... 115 Final Report Appendices |President’s Task Force on Climate Change 57 58 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix A: Working Group Members Tactics and Strategies Working Group Members Larry Kilduff, Chair Homewood Facilities David Ashwood Homewood Facilities Jim Aumiller Whiting School of Engineering Matt Boersma Student, School of Medicine Davis Bookhart JHU, Sustainability Joe Brant Peabody Institute Harry Charles Applied Physics Laboratory Sayeed Choudhury MSE Library Anatoly Gimburg Johns Hopkins Hospital Jack Grinnalds School of Medicine Marty Kajic Krieger School of Arts &Sciences William Kozak Applied Physics Laboratory Myron Kunka School of Advanced International Studies Pierce Linaweaver Trustee Emeritus (Task Force Member) Scott McVicker Bloomberg School of Public Health Nate Miller Student, School of Medicine Betsy Mayotte Professional Services Administration Jack Ross Ross Infrastructure (Task Force Member) Alexia Simmonard Undergraduate, Homewood Michael Schoeffield Bloomberg School of Public Health Final Report Appendices |President’s Task Force on Climate Change 59 Innovation and Research Working Group Members Darryn Waugh, Chair Krieger School of Arts and Sciences Edward Berg Student, Whiting School of Engineering William Blair Krieger School of Arts and Sciences Jamie Cope Student, Bloomberg School of Public Health Prof Joe Katz Whiting School of Engineering Janine Knudsen Student, Krieger School of Arts and Sciences Megan Weil Latshaw Student, Bloomberg School of Public Health Anne McCarthy Carey Business School Catherine Norman Whiting School of Engineering Cindy Parker Bloomberg School of Public Health Mark Perry Applied Physics Lab Kristin Weber School of Medicine Sam Yee Applied Physics Lab Scott Zeger University Administration 60 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Community Partnerships Working Group Members Fred Puddester, Chair Krieger School of Arts and Sciences Paul J. Allen Constellation Energy Davis Bookhart JHU, Sustainability Becky Deering Brose Student, School of Medicine Jacqueline M. Carrera Parks & People Foundation Rabbi Nina Beth Cardin Baltimore Jewish Environmental Network Cheryl A. Casciani Baltimore Community Foundation Becky Brasington Clark JHU Press Anna Duval Krieger School of Arts and Sciences Britt Forbes School of Medicine Ian Kaplan Student, School of Medicine Leana Houser JHU, Sustainability Eileen McGurty Krieger School of Arts and Sciences Salem Reiner JHU, Community Affairs Mike Rogers Student, Homewood Dana Stein Civic Works Jason Whaley‐Tobin Student, Homewood Sarah Zaleski Baltimore City Department of Planning Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 61 62 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix B: Greenhouse Gas Inventory B1.0 Overview In July 2007, President Brody set in motion an ambitious plan of action to address the causes and develop solutions to global climate change. His announcement was in true Hopkins form; the new policy pre‐
sented a vision for neutralizing greenhouse gas emissions caused by University opera‐
2008 Emissions at a Glance:
in Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide tions, but then went much further. The Equivalent (MTCDE) president noted that reducing our contribu‐
tions to climate change was an essential Homewood 99,700 first step, but a university such as Hopkins, E. Baltimore 98,600 with superior intellectual and research re‐
APL 52,500 sources, had an obligation to do more. Re‐
Peabody 5,600 cognizing that one of the largest contribu‐
Washington DC 2,600 tors to climate change is the conflict of in‐
Total 259,000 centives on the individual and group levels, the university would unify our community of scholars in a multi‐disciplinary approach to develop positive and concrete solutions to shifting behaviors towards climate friendly actions. Further, as a responsible member of the greater Baltimore community, the university would provide leadership and support to help the entire region meet similar climate protection goals. To develop a strategic plan for achieving these goals, President Brody appointed the President’s Task Force on Climate Change. The Task Force began work at the beginning of the 2007‐08 academic year and was charged to present a final report to the president in Spring of 2009. The first critical step in this process was to gain a snapshot of where we were in terms of emissions. The total amount of emissions becomes the baseline from which efforts can proceed, and is the foundation for further analysis and goal setting. While the total emissions are an important benchmark, this greenhouse gas inventory pro‐
vides more details into where the emissions are coming from, which areas are ripe for improvement, and where the major barriers to progress exist. This Appendix is structured so that readers can access information on greenhouse gas emissions from the university by focusing broadly on grand totals, totals from each of the major campuses, or most narrowly on the details that explicate emissions contri‐
Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 63 butions from various individual sources. The authors of this Appendix report believe that how, why, and where the university emits greenhouse gases may be more useful and evocative than the overall total. B2.0 Data collection Over the past two years, the Sustainability Committee has collected and compiled utility and usage data to determine the overall greenhouse gas inventory (also referred to as the carbon footprint) for the University. This inventory accounts for emissions of all six greenhouse gases specified by the Kyoto Protocol: carbon dioxide, methane, nitr‐
ous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, and sulfur hexafluoride. Each gas va‐
ries in its contribution to global warming, a fact reflected by its global warming potential (GWP). The GWP compares a given mass of a greenhouse gas to the same mass of car‐
bon dioxide, thus allowing the conversion of all the greenhouse gases into a carbon dio‐
xide equivalent (eCO2). The results of the greenhouse gas inventory are consequently reported in terms of Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MTCDE). B2.1 Sources Greenhouse gas emissions derive from a variety of sources. However, the majority of emissions come from the combustion of non‐renewable fossil fuels. Within the uni‐
versity setting, these emissions are largely concentrated in energy consuming services such as heating and cooling buildings, lighting, electronics – sometimes referred to as “plug loads,” – and transportation. A number of refrigerants are also sources of green‐
house gases, and if released accidently or from leaking equipment, their global warming potential is significantly higher than other greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide. Al‐
though the amount of released refrigerants is very low, the inventory includes them. B2.2 Greenhouse Gas Protocol In 1998, a multi‐stakeholder group convened to establish internationally accepted accounting and reporting standards for businesses. This partnership, the GHG Inventory Protocol Initiative, was convened by the World Resources Institute (WRI) and the World Business Council for Sustainable Development (WBCSD) and was comprised of business‐
es, non‐governmental organizations, governments and others. The first edition of the GHG Protocol’s A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard was published in 2001 as a standardized accounting tool intended to guide institutions in understanding, mea‐
suring and managing GHG emissions. This protocol was designed to: 64 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices •
•
•
•
Help companies prepare a GHG inventory that represents their true emissions using standardized approaches and principles; Simplify the costs of conducting a GHG Inventory; Provide information for businesses to create an effective strategy to reduce and manage GHG emissions; Provide information for participation in voluntary and mandatory GHG reduction programs; and Increase consistency and transparency in GHG accounting and reporting. •
The creation of a common standard for accounting and reporting emissions provides consistency and allows institutions to compare GHG emissions with public reports of their peer institutions. It also makes them eligible to register their GHG reductions with numerous carbon trading markets. A Corporate Accounting and Reporting Standard is the gold standard by which all other GHG protocols are based. 2.1.1
Organizational Boundaries The Johns Hopkins University consists of an historic main campus (Homewood), a medical campus (East Baltimore), the Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) campus in How‐
ard County and several satellite campuses, and properties scattered throughout Mary‐
land and Washington, DC. For the purposes of this inventory, this report addresses energy use and resulting greenhouse gas emissions data for build‐
ings and space that the university owns; totaling over 12,000,000 gross square feet (GSF). This is consistent with the Equity Share approach defined by the Greenhouse Gas Protocol’s A Corporate Ac‐
counting and Reporting Standard and the Califor‐
nia Climate Action Registry General Reporting Pro‐
tocol. This approach was chosen for two reasons. The first reason being access to data on energy use, transportation and solid waste was not readi‐
ly available for leased buildings. The second rea‐
Most campuses are dom­
son was to focus attention on properties where inated by energy inten­
we could have a direct impact on emission reduc‐
sive laboratory buildings tions through physical plant improvements and conservation efforts. Additionally, while the Johns Hopkins Universi‐
ty is reporting the University‐wide greenhouse gas emissions, the decentralized nature of the University led us to break the inventory into five distinct campuses: Homewood, East Baltimore, Washington, D.C., Peabody and APL. By doing so, we could more effec‐
tively capture the challenges and opportunities of each unique “campus.” Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 65 2.1.2
Operational Boundaries In determining the operational boundaries for the inventory, we used the World Business Council for Sustainable Development and the World Resource Institute’s jointly established accounting standards to “scope” the sources of emissions for which an insti‐
tution is responsible. The three scopes are: ƒ Scope 1 – all direct emissions from sources owned or controlled by the insti‐
tution, including: production of electricity, chilled water or steam; transportation; and fugitive emissions from refrigerants; ƒ Scope 2 – all indirect emissions from purchased electricity, chilled water or steam; and ƒ Scope 3 – all other indirect sources of GHG emissions that may result from the activities of the institution but occur from sources owned or controlled by another company, including: business travel, commuting, solid waste, etc. An important distinction should be made here between accounting and reporting. Accounting concerns the tracking of GHG emissions while reporting is the actual inclu‐
sion of the emissions in the institution’s total GHG emissions. It was decided to report only Scopes 1 and 2 in the total GHG emissions for the University as these were emis‐
sion sources that we have control over and maintain the ability to make decisions that would contribute to actual reductions. Accounting Scope 3 emissions is often proble‐
matic since there is a greater likelihood of double‐counting. We are currently tracking solid waste data for possible reporting in the future. We may attempt to track commu‐
ter and business travel data in the future, but not for accounting purposes. This infor‐
mation could help guide the creation of University policies to encourage the reduction of emissions from these sources. 2.1.3
Temporal Boundaries In order to measure progress in GHG emission reductions it is necessary to establish a base year upon which targets for reductions will be based. The base year for JHU’s GHG inventory is 2004. This is the earliest year for which a complete set of reliable data is documented and available. Because the University’s accounting system reports on a fiscal year cycle, we have chosen to track annual emissions data on a fiscal year basis which runs from July‐June. 66 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices B2.3 Em
missions The total am
mount of greeenhouse gases emitted
d in 2008 waas 258,962 MTCDE. Th
he 1
two significant s
groupings g
off emissions were from the t Homew
wood and Eaast Baltimorre camp
puses, refleccting their siize and reseearch intenssity. Of thatt university total, 99,71
10 MTCD
DE came fro
om the Hom
mewood cam
mpus, 98,55
50 MTCDE from f
the Eaast Baltimorre camp
pus (excludin
ng JHH), 52,,513 MTCDEE from the Applied A
Phyysics Laborattory, and th
he remaaining 8,189 MTCDE resulted from operations aat the remaining sites, including th
he Peabody Institute
e and the Scchool for Advvanced Interrnational Stu
udies in Wasshington, DC
C. bove depictss the combiined University‐wide em
missions from fiscal yeaar The figure ab
2004 to 2008. EEmissions aree broken intto two categgories: direcct emissionss and indirecct h correspond
d with the Scope 1 and Scope 2 em
missions cateegories as dee‐
emisssions, which
scribeed above. Direct emisssions derivee from activities where the universsity has com
m‐
pletee control ove
er the fuels or the emittting sourcess. The direcct emissionss category in
n‐
cludees the consu
umption of natural gas fo
or heating, d
diesel for th
he shut‐
tle buses, gasoline for moto
or pool r
of refrige‐
fleet,, and the release rantss from cooling systems. Indi‐
rect emissions e
are mainly ellectrici‐
ty pu
urchases. W
While the university has control ove
er electricitty con‐
sump
ption, the university do
oes not have control over how the ellectrici‐
ty waas produced. 1
TThe Homewoo
od campus cateegory includes all of the build
dings on the traditional Homewood campus, Univerrsity buildings in Charles Villaage, JH@Eastern building on 33rd St., the M
Mt Washington Campus, the Downttown Center, aand Evergreen House. Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on
n Climate Chaange 67 In
ndirect emissions from
m pur‐
chaseed electricity dominatte the Univeersity’s gree
enhouse gass emis‐
sions profile, and
d have grown from 71% of total em
missions in 2004 to missions in 2008. 75% of total em
This iis due to a n
number of ffactors, includ
ding increaased plug loads, moree intensive computin
ng re‐
sourcces, and an iincreased neeed for summ
mer cooling and dehumidifica‐
tion. Direct em
missions from
m on‐
pus stationary sources, the camp
otherr primary so
ource of emisssions, mosttly reflect caampus heating and dom
mestic hot waa‐
ter operations, but b also incllude fuels fo
or back‐up generators g
a groundss equipment. and The sshare of on‐campus stattionary sourrces remaineed steady arround 27% o
of total emiss‐
sions from 2004 to 2006, dropping to 24% in 2007 and 2008. The transpo
ortation funcc‐
tions of the univversity, while growing, remain a very v
small piece p
of the overall GHG emisssions profile
e at less than
n 1%. A
All of the un
iversity cam
mpuses have been activeely involved in reducingg energy con
n‐
sump
ption during the past fivve years. Th
he effectiven
ness of thesse actions caan be seen iin that the overall emissions of the univversity have slowed considerably. The overaall grow
wth in emissions from 20
004 to 2008 was about 13,000 MTC
CDE, which d
demonstratees vast improvemen
nt in energyy and emisssions managgement, and
d is especially impressivve wo reasons: (1) as noted
d above, the university iss using moree electricity,, and electricc‐
for tw
ity haas a higher ccarbon footp
print than naatural gas, an
nd (2) the ovverall size off the universsi‐
ty haas grown byy nearly 10 percent (1.2
25 million GSF) G
over th
he past five years. Seeen anoth
her way, the
e energy den
nsity – the M
MMBtu of energy consu
umed per sq
quare footagge 68 President’s Task FForce on Clim
mate Change| Final Report Appendices of building space – has shown a steady decline, going from 192 MMBtu/1,000 ft2 in 2004 to 188 MMBtu/1,000 ft2 in 2008. B2.4 Greenhouse Gas Potential The data suggests that electric consumption is both the largest overall contributor as well as largest emitter per unit of energy. Since Maryland electricity comes largely from coal plants, each unit of electricity produces roughly three times the CO2 as a similar amount of natural gas. The largest consumers of consumer of electricity on the JHU campuses are laboratory buildings, computing/data centers and chilled water for air conditioning. Natural gas is the cleanest of the fossil fuels, but remains a major green‐
house gas contributor because of the volume consumed. Diesel fuel used in transporta‐
tion shuttle fleets has high carbon content, but can be blended with renewable fuels like biodiesel to help reduce the emissions impacts. B3.0 Emissions by Campus B3.1 Homewood Campus The Homewood campus, comprising 152 acres in northern Baltimore, is home to four academic divisions, undergra‐
duate residences, athletic facilities and the university administration. Campus boundaries are the east side of North Charles Street in an easterly direction, University Parkway to the north, and San Martin Drive to the west. The Baltimore Museum of Art generally frames the southern edge of campus. Over the past few decades, the campus has spilled across Charles Street into the Charles Vil‐
lage community. Off‐campus buildings include student housing, administrative support buildings, and the School of Education building. Electricity dominates the emissions profile of the Homewood campus, accounting for 52% of the energy consumption but 76% of the greenhouse gas emissions in 2008. Total campus emissions in the same year reached 99,700 MTeCO2. Steam and chilled water distribution loops supplied by two campus power plants connect the buildings of Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 69 the m
main campuss. Steam is generated p
primarily by natural gass for heatingg and processs heat applicationss. The chilleed water loo
op is supplieed by electric chillers loccated at botth plantt locations. At the nortth plant, theermal storagge capabilitiies – the ab
bility to makke and sstore ice – help to supplement air co
onditioning o
or to reducee electrical lo
oad at oppor‐
tune times. Siignificant investments in Homewoo
od campus eenergy efficiiency projeccts starting iin 2003 are respon
nsible for red
ducing the annual a
emisssions contrribution from
m on‐campu
us statio
onary source
es nearly 15
5% between
n 2004 and 2006; howeever, when Charles C
Com
m‐
monss, a 317,000
0 GSF resideence hall caame online in 2007 a resulting r
inccrease in on
n‐
camp
pus stationary source em
missions occcurred. Noneetheless, em
missions from
m on‐campu
us statio
onary source
es have rem
mained belo
ow 2004 levvels each yeear partly du
ue to the in
n‐
creassed use of naatural gas in place of distillate oil forr heating wh
hich began in
n 2005. B3.2 Ea
ast Baltimore Campus The East Baltimore Campus, C
alsso kn
nown as th
he medical campus, en
n‐
co
ompasses th
hree academ
mic division
ns within close proximity p
off each other: ohns Hopkins School of Nursin
ng Jo
(SSON), Bloom
mberg Scho
ool of Public Heealth (JHSPH
H), and School of Med
di‐
cine (SOM). Faculty, staff and stu
u‐
deents move eeasily betweeen the threee scchools as many m
have jo
oint appointt‐
m
ments, course
es or meetin
ngs across th
he divisions on campus. c
Because of th
he strong researrch focus off these threee ny of the buildings b
arre scchools, man
op
pen and opeerational 24 hours a dayy, 36
65 days a year. y
The three schools 70 President’s Task FForce on Clim
mate Change| Final Report Appendices sharee this compaact, highly urbanized campus with tthe Johns Ho
opkins Hosp
pital. Becausse the Hospital an
nd the Un
niversity are separatee corporatee entities and a
operatte dentlly, the Hospiital is not inccluded in thee University’’s inventory. The School off Nursing (SO
ON) has 93, 290 GSF of ffacilities thaat include claassrooms an
nd ditoriums, reesearch and
d computer labs and a spacious stu
udent loungge officee space, aud
and ccafé. The SO
ON offers a B
Bachelor of SScience degrree, Master of Science in
n Nursing dee‐
gree, two doctoral degrees aand many po
ost‐degree opportunitiess. The Bloombe
erg School off Public Health (JHSPH) has ten acad
demic deparrtments at itts primaary teachingg and researrch facility o
on Wolfe Strreet. The building’s original footprin
nt when
n constructe
ed in 1926 w
was a mere 163,170 GSFF and has since expanded to its cur‐
rent size of 864,,179 GSF. Th
he space is mixed use accommodaating classro
ooms, offices, laborratories, aud
ditoriums, cafes c
and an
n exercise facility. f
JHSP
PH has a feew additionaal buildings on the East Baltimore campus that serve teaching and administraative purposs‐
es. he The School off Medicine ((SOM) consttitutes the vaast majorityy of physical space on th
c
totaaling over 2.2 2 million GSF G spread across 14 buildings. b
Th
he East Baltimore campus, most common prrimary use o
of space for tthe SOM is laboratories, which are h
highly energgy inten
nsive. Howevver, there iss also spacee for officess, classroom
ms, dormitorries, libraries, audittoriums and a fitness cen
nter. Siimilar, to th
he Homewood campus,, purchased electricity is i the primaary source of o
emisssions for the
e East Baltim
more campus. While it aaccounts forr 69% of the emissions, it is only 43% of th
he total enerrgy consump
ption. As previously meentioned laboratories do
o‐
minate the landsscape on thiis campus and require vvast amountts of electriccity to poweer the m
many types of equipment and appliances that are critical tto the threee Schools’ ree‐
searcch missions. It was esttimated thatt in some cases c
labs consume c
four times th
he amou
unt of energgy of a typicaal classroom. While each
h lab is uniqu
uely outfitted for the var‐
ious ttypes of ressearch beingg conducted, equipmentt like water baths, mass spectromee‐
ters, and ‐80°C frreezers are sstandard in m
many labs. B
Because experiments typ
pically run 2
24 Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on
n Climate Chaange 71 hours a day, much of this equipment is always on. Fume hoods which draw air away from the workspace and expel it so that hazardous fumes from chemicals do not harm the lab’s inhabitants are essential for safety but extremely energy demanding because they require constant reconditioning of lab air. The other 57% of East Baltimore’s energy consumption is a result of on‐campus sta‐
tionary sources, largely from natural gas used in the production of steam for heating purposes. Because natural gas emits one‐third of the CO2 when it is burned compared to the regional electricity profile on a delivered btu basis, the emissions from on‐campus stationary sources are only 30% of East Baltimore’s total carbon footprint. Since 2007 almost no distillate oil has been used to produce steam and is primarily used in emer‐
gency generators. B3.3 Washington, D.C. Campus The Washington, D.C. campus in‐
cludes The Paul H. Nitze School of Ad‐
vanced Studies (SAIS), the Krieger School of Arts and Sciences – Ad‐
vanced Academic Programs and the Carey Business School’s Washington, D.C. Center. SAIS was founded in 1943 and be‐
came a division of the Johns Hopkins University in 1950. In 1963 it moved to the first of its three buildings on Massachusetts Avenue. SAIS’s physical space, largely comprised by the Nitze and Rome Buildings, is predominantly occupied by office and classroom space which house more than a dozen research centers. SAIS offers a Doctor of Philosophy degree, a Master of Arts in International Relations degree, a Master of International Public Policy degree and joint degree and exchange programs, including centers in Bologna, Italy and Nanjing, China. The Bernstein Offit Building at 1717 Massachusetts Avenue is a multi‐use building in the Washington D.C. campus, currently shared by two divisions – SAIS and KSAS. The Carey Business School also leases space at 1625 Massachusetts Avenue. Facilities in‐
clude classrooms and conference rooms, offices and lounges, computer labs and a li‐
brary. 72 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices The emissions from the W
Washington D.C. campus are primarrily from office and classs‐
room
m activities. There are no labs or ressearch facilitties on the W
Washington campus, an
nd the p
primary enerrgy consump
ption is in heating and ccooling the buildings. R
Reductions o
of direct emissions in the DC Ceenter are primarily a result of energyy efficiency aactions takeen at thee Bernstein Offit Building. B3.4 Peeabody Institu
ute Thee Peabody Institute of Johns J
Hopkiins was origgi‐
nally fo
ounded as th
he Peabody Institute byy George Peaa‐
body in
n 1857 as A
America’s firsst academy of music. IIn 1977, it i became a a division of The Johns Hopkins Un
ni‐
versity. The 455,83
38 GSF cam
mpus is locatted in the Mt M
Vernon
n neighborho
ood of Baltimore and iss made up o
of ten buildings whicch provide housing h
and dining facili‐
nd ties, peerformance halls, the Peeabody Consservatory an
Libraryy, classroom and office sspace. The P
Peabody Con
n‐
servato
ory offers a Bachelor off Music degrree, a Masteer of Mussic degree, a Doctor off Musical Arts degree, a Masterr of Arts in Audio Scciences deggree, a duaal BM/MM
M degree program, p
ass well as, three t
Perfor‐
mance Intensive D
Diploma proggrams. In ad
ddition to th
he Conserrvatory’s deggree programs, The Peaabody Prepaa‐
ratory provides p
performancee arts trainin
ng for the Baaltimore com
mmunity thrrough its cer‐
each program
ms. tificatte and outre
Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on
n Climate Chaange 73 W
While there a
are no labs or research facilities in the Peabod
dy buildings, a unique ree‐
quireement is the need for co
onsistent humidity contrrol for the m
musical instru
uments. This is a p
particular challenge for eenergy management sin
nce buildings need heatting and coo
ol‐
ing evven when un
noccupied. B3.5 Ap
pplied Physicss Laboratory
The Ap
pplied Physiccs Laboratorry is a uniquee division of the universsi‐
ty becausee it has a non‐academ
n
ic mission. APL A
was esstablished in i
1942 through a goveernment an
nd University partnership to creatte the necesssary advancced technolo
o‐
gy to figh
ht World War W II. APL’’s proximity ffuse was creedited amon
ng the top th
hree most vaaluable tech
h‐
nological d
developmentts of the warr. After W
World War II,, JHU and th
he goverrnment com
mmitted to a continued rrelationship in which AP
PL would serrve as a tech
h‐
nical and scientiffic resource to solve thee nation’s co
omplex prob
blems. APL w
was originally located in Silver SSpring until its rapid gro
owth necessiitated the deevelopment of a new sitte in Ho
oward Countty in 1954. TThe last of A
APL’s emplo
oyees moved
d out of the Silver Sprin
ng location in 1976. 74 President’s Task FForce on Clim
mate Change| Final Report Appendices W
While there a
are no acadeemic coursess taught at A
APL, there are over 3,60
00 employeees (asidee from the p
part‐time evvening progrrams of the Whiting Sch
hool of Engin
neering). AP
PL has eexpanded siggnificantly an
nd now occu
upies 2,189,1
151 GSF of sspace. Much of this spacce is dom
minated by laboratoriess and compu
uter data centers which require vasst amounts o
of energgy, in additio
on to administrative offices for its eeleven deparrtments. Wh
hat sets APL’’s reseaarch apart frrom its coun
nterparts is tthat every prototype and model thaat is tested iin its lab
boratories iss also manuffactured onssite. Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on
n Climate Chaange 75 76 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix C: Wedge Analysis, Data and Assumptions Category Reduction Targets •
Mechanical •
•
Building Effi‐
ciency •
Plug Loads •
Lighting Transportation Increased Economy •
•
•
•
•
Thermal •
Renewables •
Electric •
CoGen •
•
•
Central Plant Efficiency •
Load Reduc‐
tion •
1% annual reduction through 2012 2% annual reduction 2013 through 2025 5% annual reduction through 2010 0.5% reduction 2011 though 2025 1% annual reduction through 2012 4% annual reduction 2013 through 2025 No change through 2011 25% improvement in fuel economy at 2012 60% improvement in fuel economy at 2015 0.5% annual reduction in stationary though solar DHW, starting 2009 Contributions drop to 0 in 2016. 0.5% annual reduction starting 2011 12,000 tons reduced at year 2010 22,000 tons reduced at year 2012 11,000 tons reduced at year 2016 0.5% annual reduction through 2025 0.5% annual reduction through 2012 1.0% annual reduction starting in 2013 Explanation Through 2012, energy efficiency upgrades from target list of 12 candidate buildings will reduce emissions by average of 1% per year. Ongoing commissioning will keep levels steady in existing buildings. Lighting up‐
grades to LEDs starting in year 2012 will reduce cool‐
ing load in buildings. Large one‐time savings in computing with installation of E1 network software to reduce idle times of com‐
puters resulting in 10,000 MTCDE. Purchasing policies to emphasize more efficient appliances and behavior modification efforts result in further reductions that continue after 2010, but those gains are largely offset by increases in computing needs. Continue lighting upgrades through 2012 (complete T‐
8 retrofits, occupancy sensors) average 1% through 2012. From 2013, begin large‐scale upgrades to LED lighting technology and daylighting. As vehicle fleet is retired, replacements include ve‐
hicles with higher levels of fuel economy. Solar thermal becomes cost effective in 2009 with applications in buildings with high hot water demands (residence halls, lab buildings). Limited roof space indicates opportunities are exhausted by 2016. Solar PV comes down the cost curve making some applications cost effective in 2011. Additional tech‐
nologies – such as low speed roof‐top wind turbines – contribute. Plans are being implemented for CoGen facilities on Homewood and East Baltimore campuses, with emis‐
sions reductions being realized in 2010 and 2012. Fur‐
ther expansions of the facilities by 2016. Reduction of energy consumption of 0.5% per year based on improvements in central plants, including use of economizers, larger cooling towers, and varia‐
ble condenser water flow. Reduced building load due to efficiency improve‐
ments; after 2012, additional load reduction due to lighting improvements. Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 77 78 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 79 80 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix D.1: New Building/Renovation Design Guidelines The Goal of the Guidelines is to facilitate High Performance (sustainable) Buildings at JHU, with a focus on energy performance and green‐
house gas reduction, for renovation and new construction. High Performance Buildings minimize energy and water consumption, are durable and maintainable, have good indoor air quality, and are safe for building occupants. It is the JHU Project Manager’s (or Plant Operations staff if applicable) responsibility to take initiative to apply these guidelines and to moni‐
tor compliance of designs to meet the goals of these High Performance Building Guidelines for New Construction and Major Renovation projects. JHU High Performance Building Design Guidelines ‐ Summary Matrix Reference #
in Document
Checklist Item
www.usgbc.org
Section V.D
Section V.A
Section lV.D
Section
V.A.11
Section IV.A
Section IV.E.
Section IV.C
Section II.A
V.A.1
V.A.2
Applicable
Not Applicable
General Requirements
Comply with LEED prerequisites
Commissioning
Submetering
Equipment Sizing and Selection
Building systems evaluated for capacity, efficiency and age (Existing Building)
Design Basis Document
Design Reviews
Cost/Benefit Analysis
Meets Energy Performance Goals
HVAC Systems
Utilize VAV Systems
Zoned by space type/ schedule
Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 81 Followup
needed
General comments
V.A.4
V.A.3
V.A.9
V.A.6
V.A.7
VII.B
VII.D
Exceeds ASHRAE Minimum Equipment Performance Guidelines
Radiant Heat (Slab, Perimeter, overhead)
Considered
Consider heat recovery systems
Occupancy sensors for HVAC
Use of desiccant wheels
Work with Health and Safety Office to establish ventilation requirements (labs)
Consider micro-chemistry (labs)
VII.E
Consider ventilated chemical storage, biosafety cabinets, low flow fume hoods, etc. (labs)
VI.A.8
Consider Chilled Beams
VII.H
"Right size" mechanical & electrical equipment (labs)
VI.C.1.a
VI.C.1.b
VI.C.1.c
VI.C.1.d
VI.C.1.e
VI.C.1.f
VI.C.1.g
VI.C.3
VII.I.c
82 Building Control Systems
Occupied/ Unoccupied Control
Air-Side Economizing
Eliminate/ Minimize Simultaneous Heating/
Cooling
Consider Demand Ventilation
Automate Temperature and/or Pressure Setpoint Reset
Variable Flow Air and Water Systems
Utilize Trend Logging
Energy Usage Data Collection
Consider hazardous banding control (labs)
President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices VII.I.d
VI.B.2
VI.B.3
VI.B.4
VI.B.5
VI.B.6
VI.B.7
VI.D.1
VI.D.1
VI.D.1
VI.D.2
VI.D.3
VI.E.1
VI.E.2
VI.E.3
VI.E.4
VI.E.5
VI.E.6
II.B
Consider localized exhaust ventilation (labs)
Lighting Control Systems
Lighting Power Density at or below ASHRAE/
IES Standard
Fixtures Energy Star Compliant (No Incandescents)
Individual Area Switching
Occupancy Sensors
Daylighting/ Controls
Consider lighting circuit scheduling controls
Building Envelope
Maximize Daylighting
Minimize Conduction Loads (windows, walls,
roof, etc.)
Minimize Solar Loads (window selection,
shading)
Consider microclimate design strategies
Consider green roof
Utility Systems
Consider Cogeneration
Consider Solar DHW
Consider Geothermal
Exceeds ASHRAE Minimum Equipment Performance Guidelines
Utilize Free Cooling
Utilize waste heat
Consider renewable energy generation
(thermal, wind, PV)
Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 83 V.C
VI.F.1
VI.F.2
VII.A
VIII.B
II.D
VI.G.2
VI.G.3
VI.G.4
Use non-CFC Refrigerants
Equipment
Specify ENERGY STAR rated office and
computer equipment
Enable computer power management systems
Specify ENERGY STAR compliant laboratory
equipment (cagewashers, sterilizers, etc.)
Can Servers Be Located Off-Site?
Water
Facility Water Usage 40% less than baseline
/ code minimums
Minimize Irrigation
Consider Utilize Greywater for Non-potable
applications
No potable water for once-through cooling of
equipment
84 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix D.2: Existing Building Analysis2 From the existing building inventory analysis, a number of buildings were selected for a
preliminary engineering analysis to determine an estimate of the initial cost as well as
the operating cost for various energy improvements. The buildings selected were identified by energy usage, which in many cases is reflective of activities within the facility and
not an indication of efficiency of the buildings and associated systems. All of the buildings selected support extensive research activities and associated laboratories.
The following table summarizes the buildings initially investigated.
Mudd Hall, Traylor Building, and portions of the Wood Basic Science Research Complex
require extensive, major renovations due to the age of the existing mechanical systems.
Separate dedicated energy conservation projects for these facilities are not recommended, but should be part of an overall renovation approach.
A brief description of the proposed projects follows:
• Remsen Hall – This facility has a constant air volume mechanical system which
employs sensible air-to-air heat recovery. The HVAC system should be converted
to variable air volume. A single typical laboratory within Remsen was recently and
2
Evaluation by Ross Infrastructure. Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 85 successfully converted to a variable air volume operation as a test installation. This
project is funded in the Homewood capital plan and will proceed to construction as
quickly as possible.
• Mergenthaler/ Jenkins Hall – This facility originally housed the laboratory func-
tions that were relocated to the Astrophysics buildings. Approximately 27 fume
hoods were removed from the building; however, the HVAC system was not modified. The portions of the building that were initially laboratories and were converted
to non-laboratory functions still utilize the 100% outdoor air constant volume HVAC
systems. The conversion of these previous laboratory spaces to variable air volume is now in design and will proceed into construction as quickly as possible.
The remainder of the building is provided with an appropriate variable air volume
system.
Initial and annual costs listed do not include the cost to replace all control systems.
• Clark Hall – This facility is provided with variable air volume systems for the non-
laboratory spaces and a 100% outdoor air constant volume system for the laboratory spaces.
The laboratory spaces should be converted to variable air volume. Unfortunately,
the basic building structural design consisting of roof trusses does not provide opportunity for the installation of an air-to-air heat recovery system.
A large energy consumer within the building is the Nanotechnology Laboratory. It
appears that the 100% outdoor air constant volume system can be rebalanced for
a reduced air quantity. This adjustment of air flow will require further coordination
with the users of the facility and the Health and Safety Department.
• New Engineering Building (NEB) – This building is similar to Clark Hall, in which
the non-laboratory spaces are provided with a variable air volume system and the
laboratory spaces are served by 100% outdoor air constant volume systems.
The laboratory spaces within the NEB should be converted to variable air volume
and an air-to-air heat recovery system should be installed.
• Chemistry Building – This new building utilizes variable air volume distribution
and incorporates air-to-air heat recovery. The existing mechanical systems are well
designed and maintained.
The minimum air flow quantities of the VAV terminal boxes can be lowered at minimal initial cost through a rebalancing effort.
• Mudd Building – The HVAC systems serving this building are aged and beyond
their useful system life. A complete HVAC retrofit of the entire facility is recommended. The renovation should incorporate variable air volume and air-to-air heat
recovery.
86 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices • Ross Research Building – The Ross building, which approaches 400,000 gross
square feet of floor area, is among the largest facilities within the Johns Hopkins
University system. The building, when originally constructed, was a state-of-the-art
facility which utilized molecular sieve air-to-air heat recovery.
This facility was the first of four future School of Medicine laboratory buildings. As
technology developed, the last two research buildings constructed (CRB-2 and
BRB) incorporated variable air volume systems. With the success of VAV in CRB2, CRB-1 was subsequently converted to VAV.
The Ross Research Building, which is presently constant volume, should be converted to variable air volume.
• Ross, CRB-1, CRB-2, BRB – An analysis of the interior lighting systems of these
four buildings was implemented. All of the buildings utilize high efficiency (T-8) fluorescent lighting.
There are many lighting fixtures within these buildings that remain energized continuously to provide life/ safety egress.
The CRB-1 and CRB-2 buildings are provided with interstitial mechanical floors
with a portion of this lighting system activated continuously.
At the present time, there appears to be no method of reducing these required
lighting systems. In the near future, with the cost effective LED lighting fixture
availability, these continuous operating lighting systems should be the first converted. In the interim, installation of motion sensors connected to this lighting may
well be an effective, low cost solution.
• Traylor Building – The Traylor Building utilizes a dual duct 100% outdoor air con-
stant volume HVAC system. The building is planned for a major HVAC retrofit.
The proposed renovation of the building will appropriately convert the constant volume dual duct system to a variable air volume dual duct system. In addition, a total
air-to-air heat recovery will be installed.
• Wood Basic Science Research Building – SOM’s Wood Basic Science Re-
search Complex consists of multiple large buildings with HVAC systems varying in
age and technology. Because of the size and complexity of this facility, it is recommended that a subsequent comprehensive analysis of these buildings be initiated.
Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 87 88 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix D.3: Central Plant Concepts3 All of Johns Hopkins’ major campuses are served by central heating and cooling plants.
The plants are efficient and well maintained and operated.
Steam
Steam is centrally generated and distributed to the campus buildings for heating of the
facilities as well as the generation of domestic hot water and process needs including
sterilization and humidification.
Steam generation and distribution pressures have been optimized for each campus.
The use of steam as a heating media was established in the early 1900s for the main
campuses. The use of High Temperature Hot Water (HTHW) in lieu of steam would be a
more efficient approach; however, the initial cost for a conversion from steam to HTHW
is prohibitive. If a new campus were to be developed, a High Temperature Hot Water
system would be implemented.
Listed below are the various central plants and inventory of steam generation energy
conservation approaches.
Oxygen Control:
The varying of the combustion air to maintain minimum
excess air to ensure high combustion efficiency.
Flue Gas Economizers:
A heat exchanger that reduces flue gas temperature and
transfers this recovered energy to the boiler feedwater system
Continuous Blowdown
Heat Recovery:
A small portion of the water in a boiler needs to be continuously discharged to maintain acceptable dissolved solids levels in the boiler feedwater. The heat associated with
this continuous boiler blowdown is transferred to the boiler
feedwater system.
Evaluation by Ross Infrastructure. 3
Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 89 Steam Driven Auxiliaries:
A portion of the steam generated by a boiler is utilized to
preheat feedwater in a deaerator. Boiler auxiliaries, such
as pumps and fans, can be provided with backpressure
steam turbines in which mechanical work is produced and
the exhaust system utilized in the deaerator. This backpressure steam turbine approach is a small combined heat
and power system.
Summer Boiler Capacity:
As the heating requirements of a campus decrease in the
summer, the existing boiler capacity can be too large to efficiently serve the load. The Homewood and East Baltimore Campus are provided with multiple boilers to efficiently serve the summer load. A small summer boiler was
installed at the Bayview Campus.
The use of biodiesel fuel could be implemented in the existing plants. A B-20 (20% biodiesel) blend could be fired in the existing plants without any modifications. Because of
cost, natural gas remains the primary fuel for the plants, and distillate oil is only utilized
when natural gas service is interrupted. Presently, biodiesel is not competitive with natural gas. Many institutions are utilizing B-20 biodiesel as the standby fuel source for gas
interruptions.
Approximately 10% of the heat content of fossil fuels is lost to the production of water
vapor during the combustion process. If the flue gas water vapor is condensed, this loss
is captured. One of the boilers at the Homewood plant has a dedicated stack, and the
use of a condensing economizer should be investigated.
Chilled Water
All of Johns Hopkins’ central chilled water plants are state-of-the-art facilities, incorporating high efficiency centrifugal chillers and variable chilled water pumping. The North
Chilled Water Plant at Homewood utilizes ice storage as a component of the generation
system.
A potential system efficiency improvement is associated with the condenser water system. The use of additional cooling towers and variable condenser water pumping would
increase efficiency. This approach requires a sophisticated operation and is not applicable to the Homewood Central Plant because of the difference in cooling tower elevations. Further evaluation of this concept is recommended.
90 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix D.4 Combined Heat and Power4 A Combined Heat and Power (CHP) system, also known as cogeneration, is the simultaneous generation of electricity and useful heat.
In the production of electricity, there is a significant amount of heat generated. The majority of utility electric generating plants reject this heat to an adjacent body of water or to
the atmosphere through cooling towers. Because of this dissipation of heat, the efficiency of the utility electric generating station is approximately 35%.
A CHP system utilizes the heat generated during the production of electricity for useful
purposes such as heating of buildings, domestic water, etc., as well as cooling through
the use of steam turbine driven and absorption chillers. The efficiency of a CHP system
is 100% greater than a utility generating station.
With the increased CHP efficiency, regional emissions associated with power generation
are significantly reduced for two main reasons: as noted above, the dissipation heat in
central electricity generation plants means that two-thirds of the energy content that
goes into the plant escapes through the smokestack unutilized. Secondly, approximately 9% of the power that is produced is then lost in the form of escape heat in the longrange transmission lines and local distribution networks.
There are many types of prime movers that can be incorporated into a CHP system.
Steam turbines, internal combustion engines, as well as combustion turbines can be
employed.
For a CHP system to be cost effective, both the electricity and heat produced need to be
utilized. Detailed CHP studies were initiated for the Homewood and East Baltimore campuses. The Applied Physics Laboratory (APL) does not have an adequate base yearround heating demand to support CHP. A CHP analysis for the Johns Hopkins Bayview
campus is presently being developed.
At the Homewood campus, a 4.6 megawatt (MW) gas-fired combustion turbine with heat
recovery steam generation will be cost effective. That project is currently being designed
and will be fully operational in late 2010.
At the East Baltimore campus, two 7.5 megawatt combustion turbines with heat recovery
steam generation are cost effective. This project is also being implemented. The East
Baltimore installation will operate on both natural gas and distillate oil, and will incorporate auxiliary duct firing to increase steam production. These combustion turbines will be
incorporated into the campus’ centralized emergency power system.
Below are the two installations and associated reductions in regional carbon dioxide.
4
Evaluation by Ross Infrastructure. Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 91 92 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix D.5: Building Electricity Usage5 The electric consumption within a building served by a central heating and cooling plant
consists of the following usages:
• Lighting
• Plug loads (computers, printers, televisions, etc.)
• Mechanical loads
Depending upon the usage of the facilities, the division of these internal electric consumptions can vary significantly.
The utility company’s (BGE) electric service to the East Baltimore Campus provides a
unique opportunity to review electric building loads. The majority of utility electric services to a campus or individual building include power for the air conditioning and heating
of the facility or campus. To determine the building electric usage without air conditioning
and heating, an estimated deduction from the total electric consumption is required. The
buildings on Johns Hopkins’ East Baltimore Campus are served centrally by dedicated
BGE feeders. The two central plants serving the East Baltimore Campus are supplied
with other dedicated BGE services.
During the initial data collection portion of this project, the electric demand load factor
appeared high, but was originally accounted for by the facility usage. The electric load
factor is the ratio of the annual electric usage to the maximum annual usage (peak demand x 8,760 hours).
The accuracy of all non-utility meters is limited because of cost as well as turn-down capability. With all major electric services, BGE meters the electric demand at fifteen
minute intervals throughout the year. BGE’s metering data for the East Baltimore Campus buildings was analyzed. The following figure indicates the daily and weekly electric
usage of the campus.
From the figure, it is clear that the majority of the electricity utilized in the buildings is
constant whether the facility is occupied or unoccupied. This observation may be the
most positive unintended consequence of the climate change analysis.
Evaluation by Ross Infrastructure. 5
Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 93 Each of the three major building electric usage components (lighting, plug loads, mechanical loads) was analyzed in detail to determine the causes of the high electric usage
during unoccupied periods. Further analysis to determine causes for this anomaly and
measures that can be taken is recommended.
Throughout the Johns Hopkins system, all computers including personal computers
(PCs) are energized continuously so that central programming changes can be implemented during off-hours. The present off-hour upgrade methodology is appropriate to
maintain high system availability during normal working hours.
All new personal computers are provided with a “hibernate” mode that allows the PC to
utilize very low power levels when not being used. The “hibernate” mode must be initially
activated by the user. During the “hibernate” mode, the PC can receive centralized signals and be automatically energized to receive central programming changes.
Johns Hopkins is presently investigating various centralized software packages to automatically switch all network PCs to “hibernate” mode when not in use.
To determine the electric reduction associated with the proposed PC management philosophy, a complete inventory of all the PCs connected to the system would be required.
With nearly 30,000 PCs connected to the system, this inventory is not available. In addition, the type of display or screen significantly changes the electric consumption of the
PC. New LCD displays use significantly less energy than older CRT monitors. Conversely, new computers are provided with energy-consuming audio/video packages that were
optional with older PCs. Additionally, there are many dedicated printers that are not networked.
A conservative estimate of the savings associated with the proposed PC management
program is approximately $2,000,000 per year, with an associated greenhouse gas reduction of 10,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year. The actual reduction
94 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices may approach $4,000,000 per year and 20,000 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalents
annually.
The use of screen savers was commonplace with CRT displays to protect the CRT
screen. New LCD displays do not require screen savers. The use of a screen saver activates the animation package within the computer and requires the PC to utilize full normal power (250 watts). The use of screen savers should be strongly discouraged. A PC
utilizing a screen saver causes over 1,800 pounds of carbon dioxide emissions per year
at a cost of approximately $170 per year.
Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 95 96 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix D.6: Recent Greenhouse Gas Reductions6 Overview
During the past five years, all of the Johns Hopkins campuses have been actively reducing energy consumption and directly decreasing operating costs as well as carbon footprints.
The vast majority of interior lighting in Johns Hopkins’ facilities is provided by fluorescent
illumination. A comprehensive program of upgrading the existing lighting system with
high efficiency fluorescent (T-8) has been implemented. The reduction of equivalent carbon dioxide emissions is estimated to be approximately 12,000 metric tons per year.
Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning
Many of Johns Hopkins’ buildings are research facilities which require large quantities of
outdoor air for ventilation and exhaust. Various types of air-to-air heat recovery systems
can be employed to capture the wasted heat contained in the building exhaust. A sensible air-to-air heat recovery device recovers “sensible energy” or temperature of the air
stream. Total heat recovery devices capture both temperature and moisture from the air
stream.
The air to a conditioned space can either have its temperature or volume varied to meet
the interior load conditions. A variable temperature approach is known as a constant volume system. A variable air volume approach modulates the quantity of air to a space. A
variable air volume approach is significantly more efficient than a constant volume system.
The following table is a preliminary screening method to determine the operating cost as
well as the carbon footprint of various heat recovery approaches as well as air distribution.
6
Evaluation by Ross Infrastructure. Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 97 PRELIMINARY MECHANICAL SYSTEM SCREENING
HVAC SYSTEM
AIR-TO-AIR
HEAT RECOVERY
ANNUAL
OPERATING COST
($/CFM-YR)
EQUIVALENT
CARBON DIOXIDE
EMISSIONS
(LB/CFM-YR)
NONE
5.90
63.2
SENSIBLE
4.85
53.7
TOTAL
4.10
44.5
NONE
2.50
27.0
SENSIBLE
2.00
21.2
TOTAL
1.80
16.7
CONSTANT VOLUME
VARIABLE VOLUME
NOTES:
1. CFM = CUBIC FEET PER MINUTE OF OUTDOOR AIR
As can be seen in the above table, use of the variable air volume (VAV) strategy for
heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) is the most desirable from both a lowest
carbon emission and cost perspectives.
School of Medicine
The Johns Hopkins School of Medicine (SOM) manages some of the largest buildings in
the JHU building inventory where both the Ross Research Building and Broadway Research Buildings each approach 400,000 square feet of floor area. These buildings are
utilized for research and have a corresponding high operating cost in comparison with
other facilities in the system. The increased operating cost is not caused by inefficient
building systems or management practices but is due to the high density of laboratories
and the associated amount of ventilation air.
In the late 1980s, the SOM investigated the use of a new air-to-air heat recovery process
that would capture both heat and moisture from the building exhaust system. Prior to implementation on a large scale, SOM installed a total heat recovery system on a virology
laboratory suite to determine safety, cross-contamination, and other operating aspects to
test the concept. The prototype system worked and has been the basis for all newer
SOM research buildings.
This total energy recovery wheel significantly reduces operating costs as well as supporting infrastructure systems by decreasing peak demand. Ross, CRB-1, CRB-2, and
BRB all utilize energy wheels at this time.
In the late 1990s, the control technology of mechanical systems had switched from being
pneumatic-based to an electronic direct digital methodology (DDC). This control enhancement provides the opportunity to vary the quantity of air to a laboratory based
98 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices upon fume hood use as well as interior cooling loads. CRB-2 and BRB were the first two
buildings to incorporate variable air volume to laboratory spaces. Based on the success
of using the VAV method in CRB-2, SOM converted CRB-1 to VAV.
The following table indicates the four major SOM research buildings and the associated
savings from the application of heat recovery wheels and VAV.
The annual operating savings of the four buildings now exceeds $4,000,000 per year.
The reduction in peak demand for chilled water and steam significantly deferred the construction of the campus’ South Energy Plant – over $19,000,000 of infrastructure capacity was avoided. The total present value of the savings associated with these four research buildings is $78,000.000.
While reducing energy and operating costs, the building’s efficient design features significantly reduce greenhouse gas emissions by approximately 21,000 metric tons per year
of carbon dioxide equivalent.
The Ross Research Building has not been converted to variable air volume. This conversion to VAV will save approximately $900,000 per year, and will further reduce the
carbon footprint by 5,050 metric tons per year.
SOM is planning to convert the Traylor Research Building to Variable Air Volume and
utilize total air-to-air heat recovery wheels. This conversion will result in approximately
$350,000 per year in savings and an associated carbon reduction of 1,700 metric tons
per year.
Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 99 The Asthma and Allergy Center located at the Bayview Medical Center is presently being converted to a variable air volume system. SOM initiated the conversion in 2007 with
anticipated completion in 2009. This VAV conversion will reduce operating cost by
$235,000 per year with an associated greenhouse gas reduction of 1,270 metric tons per
year of carbon dioxide equivalent.
Summary
All of Hopkins’ campuses have successfully implemented energy reduction programs
similar to the School of Medicine.
The effective reduction of energy usage by Johns Hopkins can be verified by reviewing
the carbon footprint of the University as a whole over the past five years. An additional
2,000,000 square feet of floor area has been constructed with no appreciable increase in
system-wide carbon footprint.
100 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix E: Evaluating Renewable Energy Credits as Reduction Strategy7 Renewable Energy Credits Renewable energy credits currently fill a strong demand from individuals and businesses to take positive action on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. At the retail level, the REC is a relatively simple product, representing “the environmental, social, and other positive attributes of power generated by renewable resources”8 that can be bought and sold in large or small quantities. Figure E.1: Where Renewable Energy Credits Come From
Production of
Renewable
Energy
Renewable
Energy Credits
Commodity Electricity
As tradable commodities, RECs have spurred an emerging green power marketing indus‐
try that supports the growth of green power projects across the country. By the end of 2004, the green power market represented over 2,200 MW of installed green power generation, with over two‐thirds of that capacity absorbed by the REC market.9 The rap‐
id growth of the green power markets suggests that this trend will continue and perhaps accelerate as climate change becomes more of a concern. Since most renewable technologies are still relatively high on the cost curve, very few have been able to break through into commercial viability and only one – large scale in‐
dustrial wind power – is making strong progress as a fossil fuel power competitor. The fact that these technologies are struggling becomes an important selling point for green power: without the sale of RECs, the industry would be even more disadvantaged against traditional dirty generation. Many green power supporters are willing to pay the premium for RECs so that the additional income will contribute financial incentives to green power generators who cannot compete on price alone. 7
From Davis Bookhart, “Are We Being Aggressive Enough? Rethinking RECs,” Paper Presented at the AASHE Conference October 5, 2006. 8
The Guide to Purchasing Green Power: Renewable Electricity, Renewable Energy Certificates and On‐Site Renewable Generation, U.S. Department of Energy, September 2004. 9
Lori Bird and Blair Swezey, “Estimates of New Renewable Energy Capacity Serving U.S. Green Power Markets (2004),” National Renewable Energy Laboratory, accessed on 9/28/06 at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower/resources/tables/new_gp_cap.shtml Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 101 Table E.1: New Renewables Capacity Supplying Competitive Markets and Renewable Energy Certificates
MW in
Place
%
MW
Planned
%
1461.6
95.7
224.8
99.3
Biomass
59.3
3.9
1.3
0.6
Solar
2.0
0.1
0.2
0.1
Geothermal
5.0
0.3
0.0
0.0
Small Hydro
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1,527.9
100.0
226.3
100.0
Source
Wind
Total
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy As Table E.1 shows, the main recipient of REC contributions is wind power, with over 95% of the current electricity capacity and over 99% of the new capacity in various planning stages as of 2003.10 With a few exceptions, the majority of recent and planned wind development is in remote areas far from load centers like cities and high popula‐
tion density areas. Because of this, most purchasers of RECs are buying tags that help support wind development outside their immediate air sheds. The relevance of this for colleges and universities is two‐fold: the purchase of RECs pro‐
vides a paper documentation of the generation of green electricity, but it does not buy it outright. In other words, the wind turbines will turn and produce power regardless of the sale of RECs.11 The purchase, therefore is a donation certain technology firms who are “doing the right thing,” which may be contrary to the mission and/or the investment philosophy of the school. Secondly, since the majority of RECs are derived from wind, the purchase will typically not contribute directly to air quality improvement in the im‐
mediate and local area of the university. Both of these issues – using scarce university resources as a “donation” and an interest in directly affecting the airshed within the lo‐
cation of the university – are issues that universities should carefully consider before funding the purchase of RECs. This paper explores other options that are more appro‐
priate below in a later section. Finally, it is important to note that the definition for RECs, as “the environmental, social, and other positive attributes of power generated by renewable resources,” is largely 10
See The Green Power Network, program area of the U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, accessed on 9/28/06 at: http://www.eere.energy.gov/greenpower. 11
Some also refer to an “additionality” test, referring to whether or not a carbon offset – in this case a REC – actually leads to the addition of new renewable power. Since RECs come from power already gen‐
erated, it fails the additionality test. 102 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices inaccurate. While there may be some positive attributes of renewable power – some find wind turbines aesthetically pleasing – it is more accurate to say that green power produces electricity with an absence of negative attributes. After all, if the mining of coal did not destroy mountains, and if the burning of coal did not produce harmful air emissions, and if the energy content from coal did not come from ancient concentra‐
tions of carbon that are not part of the current natural carbon cycle, and if coal could be regenerated at rates that are equal to or better than the rates in which we are using it, then coal would be a perfect fuel. None of that is true, though, so we are looking for replacements that reduce as many of those harmful impacts as possible. Our current slate of renewable energy resources can address these concerns better than fossil fuels, but they are not perfect either. The manufacturing of solar PV is energy intensive, and wind turbines depend on the production of steel and other resources. Because of this, it is essential that energy efficiency measures always take top priority over the purchase of additional fuel. This paper examines the role of efficiency in a later section. RECs as Market­Based Mechanisms From a legal perspective, RECs have developed at an awkward time. Ultimately, the most significant benefit of RECs may not be as voluntary financial incentives for the in‐
dustry, but rather as the lynchpin of a larger legislative framework on reducing GHG emissions. RECs, as tradable commodities, have the potential to contribute significantly to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions if they are incorporated into a market‐
based system. We have seen the benefits of using market‐based tools for reducing air pollutants; the Acid Rain Program, authorized by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990 and implemented by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, allowed power produc‐
ers the opportunity to evaluate a number of different options for complying with sulfur dioxide reductions, including “buying” their way into compliance. The system that grew out of the Acid Rain Program is typically referred to a “cap‐and‐trade” program, by which total allowable emissions for each power generator are capped at a predeter‐
mined level. Generators are given credits, in the form of tradable certificates, for each ton of SO2 they are legally allowed to emit. If the generator can find a way to emit less SO2 than they are allowed, then they can sell the excess credits to generators who are over their legal limit. The program will result in permanently reducing 10 million tons of SO2 emissions from 1980 levels.12 With the success of the Acid Rain program, it is encouraging to think how a similar pro‐
gram can be used to reduce carbon dioxide. Both SO2 and CO2 are tailpipe products of burning fossil fuels, and theoretically a ton of CO2 could be traded on a commodity ex‐
change as easily as a ton of SO2. A legal system that mandates a market‐based approach to reducing CO2 could “create a system in which reductions are made by whichever 12
“Overview: Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, accessed on 9/29/2006 at http://www.epa.gov/oar/caa/overview.txt. Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 103 emitter can achieve the reduction most cheaply. Technologies are not specified; ‘win‐
ners’ are not chosen; the emissions market dictates the price of reductions; and the end result is that reductions are achieved at the lowest overall cost.”13 In fact, a trading market has already been established; the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX).14 The only thing missing is the legal mandate that will force all large CO2 emitters into the program. The missing legal mandate is significant. For a cap‐and‐trade system to work effectively, strong and clear legal mandates from the government are necessary so that everyone has the same set of rules by which to operate. Ultimately, the Acid Rain program works because the US EPA has the authority to punish entities who do not comply with the emissions obligations. This clear legal framework assures generators that if they work within the system, they will be rewarded by the system. The system includes clear rules for trading, arbitration, and conducting financial transactions, and most importantly, mandates that all large polluters comply. This last point is essential because it ensures that no large polluter has the ability to opt out or otherwise gain a competitive advan‐
tage over entities who are complying.15 If national mandates are legislatively enacted, the CCX may play a central role in facili‐
tating the market exchange of GHG emissions or other offsets, such as RECs.16 Unfortu‐
nately, without legal mandates, there are very few entities who wish to bind themselves to a GHG reduction program that is voluntary, experimental, and one that may place the entity at a disadvantage to their industry competitors. This hesitancy applies to colleges and universities as well; even with most schools today prioritizing sustainability on cam‐
pus, only four universities actually belong to the CCX.17 Under a legal – and mandatory – carbon reduction framework, universities may be able to play a significant role in moving the markets in a positive direction. Under this type of regime, universities, as large consumers of energy resources, may actually come un‐
der regulatory scrutiny. In addition to compliance, universities may be interested in us‐
ing the framework to push the market. For example, if electric utilities are under pres‐
sure to collect enough RECs to comply with the legal mandates, universities could buy 13
Kathryn Zyla, Pew Center on Global Climate Change, “Issue Paper for the Consumer Energy Council of America Renewable Fuels Working Group,” 2005. 14
See the Chicago Climate Exchange website at http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/. The Regional Green‐
house Gas Initiative (RGGI) is another example. 15
The legal role for RECs is actually much more complicated and uncertain than described in this paper. With a myriad of various state regulations overlapping with provisions in the federal Public Utility Regula‐
tory Policies Act of 1978 (PURPA), there is a large amount of uncertainty about the legal ramifications of buying and selling RECs and how they fit into regulatory schemes. For a thorough examination of this regulatory situation, see Edward A. Holt, Ryan Wiser, and Mark Bolinger, “Who Owns Renewable Energy Certificates? An Exploration of Policy Options and Practice,” Ernest Orlando Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, April 2006. 16
RECs are sometimes included as carbon offsets under the assumption that every MWh or green power displaces a MWh of fossil power. 17
Chicago Climate Exchange. 104 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices additional RECs to drive up the prices. This would force the utilities to either pay more into the compliance fund, or even better, to produce more renewable energy. Without this type of mandatory program in effect today, however, the purchase of RECs is not likely to budge the renewables market. In today’s voluntary environment, it is clear that “while helpful in building awareness, encouraging experimentation, and achieving some company‐level emissions reductions, (the voluntary programs) are not expected to reduce or even stabilize U.S. GHG emissions in the next decade relative to current levels.”18 18
Robert R. Nordhaus and Kyle W. Danish, “Designing a Mandatory Greenhouse Gas Reduction Program for the U.S.,” Pew Center for Global Climate Change Policy Report, May 2003. Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 105 106 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix F: Current Activities that Reflect Community Partner­
ships Goals There are a number of ongoing activities within Johns Hopkins University that the Com‐
munity Partnerships working group noted in regards to their positive environmental im‐
pact and ability to extend those benefits outside the boundaries of the university. The working group determined that these programs are worth supporting and emulating because they meet the overarching objective of community collaboration and shared environmental benefits. Live Near Your Work Since 1997, Johns Hopkins and the Health Sys‐
tem has teamed up with Baltimore City and the state of Maryland to offer grants help to bene‐
fits eligible employees who choose to purchase homes in designated neighborhoods near the Homewood, East Baltimore, Peabody and Bay‐
view campuses. The program is designed to stimulate home ownership amongst em‐
ployees of the Johns Hopkins Institutions and support community revitalization in Balti‐
more City. To date, the Johns Hopkins Live Near Your Work program has awarded over 300 grants. The Live Near Your Work (LNYW) program provides a cash grant to eligible JHI em‐
ployees purchasing homes in targeted neighborhoods. The Program is administered by the Johns Hopkins University Office of WorkLife & Engagement on behalf of the Johns Hopkins Institutions. The City of Baltimore will make a contribution of $1,000; JHI will contribute an additional amount that is determined by the location of the purchased home. Total grant subsidies, including the City contribution, will be in one of the follow‐
ing amounts: $2,500, $6,000, $10,000 or $17,000 based on the target area in which the home is purchased. These funds are applied at settlement to closing costs or down payment. The employee must also contribute a minimum of $1,000 in the settlement transaction. The LNYW program provides a number of collaboration benefits to Johns Hopkins and the community; by assisting employees with home ownership near the Hopkins cam‐
puses, the program helps reduce the amount of commuting vehicles on the road during rush hours. The close proximity significantly shortens the commute and opens a wider range of alternative commuting options, such as walking, biking, or taking advantage of the free JHMI shuttle. If the 300 employees who have already taken advantage of this Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 107 program shorted their commute by an average of 5 miles per day, then the program saves 360,000 miles of road travel per year. In terms of environmental benefits, that translates to a reduction of 14,000 gallons of gas and 27,000 pounds of carbon dioxide. Sustainable Hopkins Infrastructure Program The Sustainable Hopkins Infrastructure Program is an innovative organization co‐
operated by students and faculty to promote sustainable development and fiscal savings on campus. The program will adopt the following elements: • Identify opportunities for sustainable development and retrofit projects on the Johns Hopkins Homewood campus, and look for opportunities that can benefit the surrounding community. • Publicize and market both SHIP and the concept of sus‐
tainable development to encourage university and civ‐
ic leaders to pursue projects that simultaneously re‐
duce environmental impact and operating costs. • Share our successes with other universities and com‐
munity entities by maintaining a highly transparent website, thus making Hopkins a leader and example in sustainable development. Zipcar In 2007, the university signed a contract with a shared car company called Flex Car (later changed to ZipCar), whereby an all hybrid fleet of vehicles would be placed on the Homewood campus and accessible to both the Johns Hopkins and neigh‐
boring communities. The car share program works by allowing members to reserve one of the cars for a specified period of time – from 30 minutes to three days – for a reasonable all‐ inclusive price. Research shows that shared car programs have the effect of taking 15 cars off the road for each shared car in operation, resulting in reductions in congestion, vehicle emissions, and greenhouse gases. The program has since expanded, going from the initial placement of four cars to a cur‐
rent fleet of 10 cars, and membership includes Hopkins students, staff, faculty, and area residents. 108 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix G: Sample Future Community Projects Project 1: Local Business Advisory Service Abstract: This program could extend JHU’s efforts to reduce local greenhouse gas emissions by providing the education, motivation and practical resources to businesses in the Balti‐
more area that are interested in reducing their GHG emissions, and their energy costs, but currently do not know how to do so. Such an effort would enable Hopkins to be a “good neighbor,” sharing your unique wealth of intellectual resources and status to im‐
prove the health of local businesses and individuals alike. Ideally, this program would also contribute to making Baltimore a more widely‐recognized “green city,” potentially increasing green jobs and attracting entrepreneurial individuals to assist these business‐
es in greening their buildings and operations. Project 2: Charles Street Commuter Bus System Abstract: The College of Notre Dame of Maryland, Loyola College, and Johns Hopkins University employ a number of faculty and staff personnel, many of whom commute in Single Oc‐
cupancy Vehicles (SOVs). The purpose of this idea would be to incorporate these three colleges into a single network, the Charles Street College Corridor Network (CSCCN), for purposes of increased carpooling. The ultimate goal is to get people out of SOVs and into a ride‐share or bus program. This project would reduce greenhouse gases by en‐
couraging carpooling and increasing mass transit ridership. This would mean that fewer cars would be on the road. Fewer cars on the road would lead to less stop and go traf‐
fic, idling at stoplights, and an increased flow of traffic. In addition, less cars on the road may encourage more people to use alternate modes of transportation, such as walking or riding a bicycle, commuting options that are less friendly in areas of heavy vehicular traffic. Project 3: Civic Works­JHU Partnership to Reduce Home Energy Use Abstract: Civic Works, a local Baltimore community non‐profit, has created a successful and inex‐
pensive model for reducing home energy consumption. “Project Lightbulb” installs compact fluorescent lightbulbs (CFLs), kitchen and bathroom aerators, low‐flow sho‐
werheads, and carbon monoxide detectors in low and moderate‐income homes, and Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 109 installs wraps on hot water heaters. A partnership with Johns Hopkins University would allow a Project Lightbulb type program to be implemented in communities that JHU partners with. The project would include education on the importance of recycling compact fluorescent bulbs and information on the safe disposal of used bulbs. Civic Works would train JHU students on doing the installations and help with other logistical issues. JHU students who spend 300 hours on Project Lightbulb over the course of a year could receive an AmeriCorps education award of $1,000 through Civic Works. More information is available at http://www.civicworks.com/projectlightbulb.html. Project 4: Expansion of Shuttle System Abstract: The current employee/student shuttle system transports employees and students be‐
tween Hopkins campuses, to campus from existing Hopkins satellite parking lots and to campus from select locations within approximately a 1 mile radius. Based on a recent survey conducted at the Bloomberg School of Public Health, 57% of respondents re‐
ported that they live more than 1 mile but less than 10 miles from campus and 46% of the respondents indicated that they commute to work the majority of the time by driv‐
ing alone. Expanding the shuttle to include commuters during the rush hour periods would reduce global greenhouse gas emissions by reducing the number of single occu‐
pancy trips to Hopkins. This reduction would be measureable and would coincide with Hopkins’ existing Live Near Your Work program. The proposed expansion of the shuttle is to the southern neighborhoods of Canton, Fell’s Point, and Federal Hill. Project 5: Urban Forestation Goal Abstract: Trees play a crucial role in the infrastructure of our urban areas, providing ecosystem services that yield significant economic, social and environmental benefits, including re‐
ducing the demand for heating and cooling. This in turn reduces the greenhouse gas emissions associated with electricity production and natural gas consumption. In fact, it is estimated that well‐placed trees can cut energy costs by as much as 25%. The health of our urban tree canopy will be vital as we develop solutions to climate change. As a preeminent educational institution and as a pillar of the Baltimore community, the Johns Hopkins University system has a unique opportunity to provide leadership on set‐
ting and using urban forestation goals to address climate change. A JHU urban foresta‐
tion goal would be a perfect complement to TreeBaltimore, Baltimore City’s plan to double our tree canopy over the next 30 years. One policy that could be adopted to help frame the goal would be a no net loss tree policy. This would require that a JHU Tree Canopy Inventory be completed, followed by maintenance of existing trees and planting 110 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices additional trees to offset unavoidable tree mortality. This work could be done by stu‐
dents as a part of community‐based learning. The project data and impact measure‐
ments will provide learning opportunities for JHU professors and students and the community building aspect accomplishes JHU’s mission to connect employees and staff to the Baltimore community. The act of planting trees can also be used to develop awareness about climate change and the numerous ways that citizens can act to reduce the threat of it. More information is available at http://www.parksandpeople.org/. Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 111 112 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix H: JHU Faculty with Sustainability Expertise Faculty Ben Barnum Nathaniel Winstead Jeng‐Hwa Yee Harry Charles Rangaswamy Srinivasan Carlos Del Castillo Frank Monaldo Don Thompson Patrick Breysse Francesca Dominici Peter Winch Kevin Frick Stuart Chaitkin Brian Schwartz Tom Burke Thomas Glass Roni Neff Derek Cummings Robert Gilman William Pan Cindy Parker Doug Norris Jonathan Links Robert Lawrence Greg Glass Maria Elena Figueroa Kellogg Schwab Al Arking Darryn Waugh Kathy Szlavecz Doug Barrick Bertrand Garcia‐Moreno Dan Reich Jerry Meyer Sharon Kingsland Thomas Haine Scott Barrett Wilfrid Kohl William Checkley Lian Shen School Area APL APL APL APL APL APL APL APL JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH JHSPH KSAS KSAS KSAS KSAS KSAS KSAS KSAS KSAS KSAS SAIS SAIS SOM WSE Atmospheric Modeling Atmospheric Modeling Atmospheric Remote Sensing Energy – Materials Energy – Materials Ocean Remote Sensing Ocean Remote Sensing Ocean Remote Sensing Air Pollution, Asthma Air Pollution Modeling Behavior Change, International Health Economics Energy Policy Environmental Health, Land Use Environmental Health Practice Epidemiology, Social Consequences Food policy and public health Infectious Diseases Infectious Diseases Population, Health, and Environment Public Health Advocacy and Practice Public Health Ecology Public Health Preparedness Sustainable Food Production Vector‐borne Diseases Water and Health Water and Health Atmospheric and Climate Sciences Atmospheric and Climate Sciences Ecology Energy ‐ Biofuels Energy ‐ Biofuels Energy – Materials Energy ‐ Solar Environmental History Ocean and Climate Sciences Economics Economics Infectious Diseases Air‐Sea Exchange Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 113 Tony Dalrymple Bill Ball Grace Brush Catherine Norman Jonah Erlebacher Howard Katz Joseph Katz Charles Meneveau Shiyi Chen Erica Schoenberger Ben Schafer Hugh Ellis Seth Guikema Ben Hobbs Greg Eyink WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE WSE Coastal Processes Contaminant transport Ecology Economics Energy – Materials Energy – Materials Energy – Materials Fluid Turbulence Large Scale Scientific Computing Society and Environment Structural Engineering Systems Analysis Systems Analysis Systems Analysis Turbulence / Data Assimilation 114 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices Appendix I: Sustainability and Climate Efforts at Peer Universities In order to evaluate the range of possible activities at JHU, the Working Group per‐
formed a survey, using information available on the web, of related activities at over 40 other universities.19 This list covered a broad cross‐section of universities, including our peer universities, large state universities, and small private universities. For each uni‐
versity the research, education, and operations activities related to climate change, energy, and sustainability activities were summarized, and aspects particularly relevant for JHU noted. Rather than presenting the full survey we focus here on some key issues that helped shape the Working Group’s recommendations for JHU activities. A common feature between virtually all universities examined is that environmental, energy and sustainability activities have been consolidated under broad, multi‐
disciplinary, university‐wide umbrella centers or institutes. This includes many (if not all) of our peer universities, e.g., Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, MIT, Princeton, Stanford and Yale all have university wide organizations. There is no naming convention for these umbrella organizations, with names including various combinations of envi‐
ronmental, energy, and sustainability, and center, institute and initiative. Most umbrella institutes have a Director, with a small administrative / professional staff, and an oversight steering committee with representatives from different schools, de‐
partments, and disciplines. These are typically “virtual” organizations, with a strong web presence but only a few offices. However there are several universities that house their environmental or sustainability centers in (new or refitted) green buildings, e.g., Duke, University of Michigan, University of Pittsburgh, and Yale. The umbrella institutes typically have multiple, more focused, research or education centers that come under the institute, and the top‐down institutes aim to provide struc‐
ture to existing resources. There is a larger variation in the number of more focused centers, e.g., more than 40 within the Stanford Institute, 20 within the Columbia Earth Institute, and 4 within the Princeton Environmental Institute. Many of the institutes have funds to seed new research activities, with a focus on inter‐
disciplinary research (e.g., Harvard, Columbia, University of Michigan, University of Pittsburgh, and Rice). In most cases these internal grants provide $20‐40K for a couple of years, although there are examples of larger grants for multidisciplinary research teams (e.g., $100K per year at University of Michigan). The funding for the sustainability institutes and centers also varies between universities. In most cases the funding comes from a range of sources, including university funds, 19
The majority of this analysis was performed by graduate student Ed Berg, working with Davis Bookhart and William Blair. Final Report Appendices | President’s Task Force on Climate Change 115 federal funding, and gifts from private individuals, foundations and companies. There are in fact many cases where there is substantial private funding (this is discussed in a New York Times article “A threat so big, academics try collaboration,” Dec 25, 2007). For example, Arizona State University, Duke, University of Michigan, University of Pitts‐
burgh, and University of Rochester have all received gifts in the range of $10 to $70 mil‐
lion from private donors or foundations, while Berkeley, Stanford, Rice, University of Arkansas, and University of Illinois have received similar or larger gifts from a range of private companies. 116 President’s Task Force on Climate Change| Final Report Appendices