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