Virginia State University
Wagner College
Washburn University
Wellesley College
Wesleyan University
West Chester University of
Pennsylvania
West Virginia Health Sciences Center
West Virginia University
Western Connecticut State University
Western Oregon University
Westfield State University
Wheaton College (MA)
Whitworth University
Widener University
Williams College
Williston Northampton School
Worcester State College
Xavier University
Yeshiva University
Youngstown State University
FY2013 Go-Green Presentation
Bentley University
Refining a Peer Group
Go-Green Measurement, Benchmarking and Analysis
Go-Green Peer Institutions
Babson College
Champlain College
Fitchburg State University
Hamline University
Hampshire College
Le Moyne College
Siena College
Wesleyan University
Recent Climate Zone 2 Additions:
• Framingham State University
• Westfield State University
• Worcester State University
• Tufts University
2
Suggested to Replace:
• Hamline University
• Le Moyne College
Peer Group Based On
• Size
• Technical Complexity
• Climate Zone
GHG Summary –
Carbon Mitigation FY08-13
3
Collected GHG Sources at Bentley University
Purchasing RECs for the first time in FY13
Scope 1 –
Direct GHGs
• On-Campus
Stationary (Natural
Gas)
• Vehicle Fleet
Scope 2 –
Upstream GHGs
• Purchased Electricity
Scope 3 –
Indirect GHGs
• Faculty/Staff/
Student Commuting
• Employee Air Travel
• Agriculture
• Student Study
Abroad Travel
• Refrigerants
• Solid Waste
• Wastewater
• Purchased Paper
• Transmission &
Distribution Losses
4
Bentley’s Emissions Profile by Source
RECs change Bentley’s source priorities moving forward
Gross Carbon Emissions by Source
Paper
1%
Wastewater
0.1%
Directly
Financed Air
Travel
3%
Study Abroad
15%
Fleet
1%
Agriculture
0.02%
Refrigerants
0.2%
On-Campus
Stationary
19%
Net Carbon Emissions by Source
Paper Agriculture
1%
0.03%
Fleet
Wastewater
1%
0.2%
Study Abroad
26%
On-Campus
Stationary
33%
Student
Commuting
6%
Fac/Staff
Commuting
10%
Purch. Electric
41%
Scope 2 T&D
4%
Refrigerants
0.4%
Directly
Financed Air
Travel
5%
Student
Commuting
10%
Fac/Staff
Commuting
17%
Scope 2
T&D
7%
Purch.
Electric
0%
Measuring the Carbon Management Hierarchy
Tracking progress against neutrality and interim targets
Carbon Mitigation Portfolios:
1. AVOIDANCE
•
AVOID
REDUCE
ACTIVITY
INTENSITY
REPLACE
•
Preventing additional activities before they start – a key
indicator of future performance
Example: Increasing space utilization instead of building
or acquiring new space
2. REDUCE / ACTIVITY
•
•
Reducing an existing level of activity
Example: Fewer BTUs consumed; fewer miles traveled
3. REPLACE / INTENSITY
OFFSET
•
•
Lessening the carbon intensity of activities
Example: Fuel switching (oil > natural gas; introducing
attributed renewables); commuting mode mix (drive alone
> carpool)
4. OFFSETS
•
•
Utilizing carbon offsets to neutralize “unavoidable” GHGs
Example: RECs; sequestration; retail offsets
Progress towards 2015 interim target
Avoidance portfolio “baked into” GHG totals, not separate reductions
Activity and Intensity Portfolios – GHG
Impact 2008-2013
Net Change in GHGs by Portfolio
6%
25,000
+4%
4%
-8%
20,000
5,000
-2%
-4%
-6%
-8%
-4%
-10%
-
Activity
7
Total
Other
sport
Other Transport
50% Reduction by
2015
Employee Commuting
-2%
Student Commuting
10,000
Impact of Improved
Space Utilization: 0%
-384 MTCDE
Utilities
MTCDE
15,000
-40%
Net GHGs
ACUPCC Baseline
2%
Intensity
Avoidance at the Top of Hierarchy
Without strong space management, GHG reduction opportunities are diminished
Percent Reduction in GSF per FTE
FY08-13
Building Square Footage per FTE
12%
800
Highest Peer GSF/FTE
700
10%
8%
500
400
6%
300
4%
Peer Average: 4%
Lowest Peer GSF/FTE
200
2%
8
Peer Average
2013
0%
Chart Ordered by Density Factor
H
2012
Bentley
Bentley University
2011
F
2010
E
2009
D
2008
C
-
B
100
A
GSF per Person
600
Tying Facilities Mgmt. to
Sustainability Outcomes
9
Construction Vintage
Bentley challenged by both lower-quality and more expensive building vintages
100%
90%
Pre-War
80%
36%
70%
% of Campus GSF
• Built before 1951
• Durable construction
• Simpler building systems, lower
modernization needs
Post-War
60%
• Built between 1951 and 1975
• Low-quality, experimental construction
• Shorter lifecycles – need repairs and
renovations more frequently
50%
35%
40%
Modern
• Built between 1975 and 1990
• Quick-flash construction
• Prone to “functional obsolescence”
30%
20%
29%
10%
0%
10
Complex
• Built since 1991
• Higher-quality, mechanically complex
spaces
• More expensive to maintain and repair
Focusing on Residential Space
Aging residential space creates a unique opportunity for projects & programming
GSF by Function
Bentley Function Breakout
600,000
500,000
10%
400,000
GSF
30%
7%
53%
300,000
200,000
100,000
-
11
Academic/Admin
Athletic
Residence Life
Student Life
Academic/
Admin
Under 10
Athletic
10 to 25
Residence Hall
25 to 50
Student Life
Trades Work Orders in Residence Halls
Using W.O data to identify opportunities to improve facilities
Count of Daily Service Work Orders
Res Hall WO’s by Age Category
2,000
1,800
Under 10
10 to 25
Over 25
1,600
1,400
1,200
1,000
800
600
400
200
-
*Excludes custodial WOs
12
Frequent WO’s in Selected Bldgs.:
-Plumbing issues
-Ceiling/Roof Leaks
-HVAC Unit Leak
-Heat/AC Problems
-Reset Breaker
Impact of Project Mix
Recent renovations improved sustainability performance on campus
Kresge Hall Building Update
“Mix of Spending”
0%
24%
0%
43%
13
Kresge Hall
33%
•
•
•
•
•
New Roof
Water-Saving Fixtures
LED Lights
High Efficiency Boilers
Energy Efficient
Appliances
Water Issues Rising in Importance
Not just an environmental issue, impact institutional operating costs
Increase in Municipal Water Costs Since FY2000
Source: http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/Interactives/Utility_rates.htm
14
Water cost and consumption
Regaining FY09 reductions in usage could net over $230K annually
Total Wastewater Production
Water/Sewer Costs
50
1,600,000
45
1,400,000
40
35
1,000,000
30
Dollars
Total Gallons in Millions
1,200,000
25
20
Nearly $1.2M
More Spent on
Water Over 3
Year Period
Despite Lower
Average
Usage
800,000
600,000
15
400,000
10
200,000
5
0
0
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
15
FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013
Programmatic
Opportunities
16
Campus Initiatives
Bentley displays strong diversity in campus engagement efforts
Other Campus Initiatives:
• Green Cleaning
• Electronics Recycling
• Farm Stand
• Energy Efficient Appliances
17
Campus electricity use on the decline
Res halls account for approximately 30% of total electricity consumption
% Electricity Consumption
Project
Investments and
Programming
Efforts Should
Focus on
Residence Halls
to Maximize
Impacts of Each
27%
73%
Res Halls
Rest of Campus
*Estimated based on consumption levels from the Black
Out Challenge in October
18
Other Programmatic Successes - Composting
Composting represents 12% of Bentley’s total waste
Bentley's Total Diversion Rate
40%
35%
Database Avg. Diversion for Composting Schools
30%
25%
20%
Database Avg. Composting Rate
15%
10%
5%
0%
FY2010
FY2011
Traditional Campus Composting
19
FY2012
FY2013
Traditional Recycling
A Major Impediment to Achieving GHG
Targets
A persistent source with major programmatic implications
Net Emissions FY13
31%
69%
84% of air travel
emissions are
generated through the
Study Abroad Program
All Other Sources
20
Air Travel
Summary Performance
21
Substantial Reductions Compared to Peers
Bentley’s reductions while higher, are not as balanced as some peers
90%
10%
80%
0%
-10%
Peer Average: -4%
70%
60%
50%
-20%
-30%
-40%
40%
30%
20%
DATA IN PROGRESS
100%
DATA IN PROGRESS
20%
Distribution of Reductions by Portfolio
Net Change in GHGs FY08-13
10%
-50%
0%
Activity
Intensity
Offsets
Two Different Ways to Benchmark GHG Emissions
GHG Emissions per Student
Stresses efficient use of space.
23
GHG Emissions per 1,000 GSF
Stresses intensity of
operations and commuting.
Gross GHG Emissions
Gross GHG Emissions
Total Student FTE
Total GSF in Footprint
X 1,000
Normalized Gross Emissions Performance
24
BASELINE
BASELINE
Strong space management and energy efficient operations
Normalized Gross Emissions Performance
Strong space management and energy efficient operations
25
Normalized Net Emissions Performance
No other peer institution purchasing RECs
26
Questions & Discussion
27