University of La Verne
Climate Action Plan
A Framework for Progress
Michael G. Wolfsen
2011
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
3
Introduction
5
Establishing a Structure for Success
7
The Baseline: Campus Emissions Inventory
8
The Climate Action Plan
12
Transportation
13
Energy
16
Other Categories
20
Water Usage and Conservation
21
Educational, Research, Community Outreach
24
Financing Approach
25
Appendices
27
2
Executive Summary
This Climate Action Plan takes the approach of a framework for progress rather
than a complete prescriptive. It is recommended that the University of La Verne’s
plan for reducing Green House Gas Emissions be a living, flexible document that
can and will be adjusted to reflect new challenges, opportunities, or scientific
understanding. Additionally, the Plan is intended to be implemented as a part of the
Campus Master Plan and an academic strategic plan for the University.
The Plan also addresses Water Usage and Conservation. The University is uniquely
positioned to take a leadership role in this area and the Plan contains the details
necessary to create a model campus as an example of excellence in water
management and water technology.
The Climate Action Plan establishes 2005 as a base year for emissions and identifies
the actions necessary to achieve a 17% reduction by 2020 and an 80% reduction
by 2050. These goals are consistent with objectives defined by the state of
California and are similar to the objectives defined by other reporting colleges and
universities.1 It is recommended that these goals be reevaluated every three to five
years to align with economic and strategic realities.
The major areas for emissions reduction are found in transportation and energy
related emissions. The overall approach to emissions reduction is envisioned to be
one of continual focus, steady progress on an annual basis and reasonable flexibility
in adjusting to existing conditions. Projected emissions reductions necessary to
reach the goals are shown in Chart 1.
1
See Appendix 1: Selected Southern California Sustainability Goals
3
Metric tonnes eCO2
Chart 1: Benchmark Timelines
9000
8000
7000
6000
5000
4000
3000
2000
1000
0
Transportation
Energy
Other
Chart 2 defines the level and type of reductions necessary. For example, 13% of
transportation related emissions could be eliminated by 2020 by pursuing the
actions stated. By 2050, progress in carpooling, public transportation and oncampus housing can be projected to result in an additional 45% reduction.
Chart 2: Benchmarks for Reductions
Emissions Source
Transportation
Baseline: 8000
tonnes/yr
Reductions of emissions from 2009 baseline
2011-2020
2021-2050
5% reduction from carpooling, public 10% reduction from
transportation, etc.
carpooling, public
transportation, light rail
5% reduction from reduced vehicle
35% reduction from
emissions
reduced vehicle emissions
3% reduction in miles traveled,
student housing, on-line learning
Energy
10% from energy efficiency
10% from increased oncampus student housing
and online learning
25% from efficiency
Baseline: 4800
tonnes/year
10% from conservation
25% from conservation
10% from Renewables
10% from increased clean
purchased electricity
30% from reduced Waste
20% from reduced usage
Other, primarily
paper usage and
solid waste
Baseline: 400
tonnes/year
20% from reduced Waste
5% from reduced usage
4
Introduction
Background
The University of La Verne is deeply rooted in a commitment to respect the
environment. That philosophy is clearly stated in the Mission Statement: “The
University affirms a philosophy of life that actively supports peace with justice, the
health of the planet and its people. Therefore, in light of this affirmation, it
encourages students to become reflective about personal, professional, and societal
values. It also encourages values-based ethical behavior.”
Based on those values, in 2008, President Steve Morgan signed an agreement to
include La Verne in the American College & University Presidents Climate
Commitment (ACUPCC). President Morgan said. “The University of La Verne's
Mission Statement speaks directly to helping our students understand the impact
humans have on their environment. So I believe it is essential for us to be part of a
nationwide effort to seek solutions to this imminent threat.”
The University of La Verne has made recent progress in reducing climate impacts as
reflected in new buildings, electrical conservation, carpooling, waste reduction,
recycling, etc. As this plan is being prepared, the University is welcoming a new
incoming president. It is anticipated that the strategic plan for the University is
likely to be revised to address goals and challenges for the years ahead.
American College and University President’s Climate Commitment
Around the country, 676 colleges and universities have joined the American College
and University Presidents Climate Commitment and have been making progress in
reducing emissions. Institutions with strong endowments and a large portion of
students living on campus have achieved remarkable progress. However, many
5
other schools, especially those impacted by current economic conditions have had
to reduce or modify their climate related efforts to reflect their financial realities.
With the signing of the ACUPCC agreement, the University has committed to
demonstrate its values through the adoption of the roadmap envisioned by the
ACUPCC:

Establish an institutional structure to oversee the development and
implementation of the schools program to comply with the ACUPCC.

Complete an emissions inventory within a year.

Within two years, establish a climate action plan that sets a target date with
interim milestones for becoming carbon neutral.

Take immediate steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by choosing from
a list of tangible action options.

Integrate sustainability into the curriculum, making it part of the educational
experience.

Make climate action plan, inventory and progress reports publicly available.
Each of the commitments is addressed in the emissions reduction and related
compliance sections of this report. The ACUPCC asks institutions to set a carbon
neutral date. This Climate Action Plan recommends that the University of La Verne
establish an incremental plan towards this objective. The plan articulates many key
actions steps towards carbon neutrality. It is suggested the University pursue the
short and mid term recommendations and revise the overall plan as appropriate
every 3 to 5 years.
Legal Mandates
From a legal standpoint, climate goals have yet to be established on a national
basis; however, the State of California has passed legislation that has begun to
mandate climate improvement actions. In 2006, the Global Warming Solutions Act
(AB 32) was passed, directing that California reduce GHG emissions to 1990 levels
6
by 2020. The California Energy Efficiency Strategic Plan 2(SB375) calls for
reductions in Southern California GHG emissions of 8% by 2020 and 13% by 2035.
Although both bills are subject to continued refinements and discussions, it is
anticipated that some form of the laws will be enforceable in the future.
Establishing a Structure for Success
ACUPCC Commitment: Establish an institutional structure to oversee the
development and implementation of the schools program to comply with the
ACUPCC.
Senior Oversight
ACUPCC Colleges and Universities have adopted various structures to achieve
climate goals. Most acknowledge the President as the top level sponsor of the work.
The tasks are assigned either to a campus sustainability officer, a head of facilities
or a committee.3
It is recommended that the President or Provost have strategic oversight of the
sustainability efforts. These positions have oversight of the Master Plan and the
academic strategic plan, and can assure that the Climate Action Plan is consistent
with overall university plans. The educational, research and community outreach
portions of the plan would proceed under the specific guidance of the Provost.
Facilities
The annual progress on the Climate Action Plan should be assigned to the Associate
Vice President of Facility & Technology Services & CIO. Many areas of focus for
emission reduction are already managed in the Facilities Department. This
dimension of responsibility and annual reporting requirements will require additional
2
3
California Air Resources Board http://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/sb375/sb375.htm
See Appendix 2 for Southern California organizational approaches
7
resources, either in the expansion of current positions or in the form of a
sustainability coordinator.
It is recommended that the Facilities Department be strengthened in the ability to
comprehensively assess current and future energy and water requirements to carry
out the Plan. This effort will include audits of energy and water usage and
addressing specific retrofitting necessary to older buildings that are currently
planned to continue in service. These audits are one-time benchmark studies which
will guide future decision making and will require additional resources either
internally or through the use of resource consultants.
Supporting Structures
It is recommended that the existing Sustainable Campus Consortium (SCC) be
retained, under the direction of the President or Provost to provide input and
assistance of specific projects. With a revised charter statement, this group can be
very effective in carrying forward annual programs that coordinate the efforts of
students, faculty and staff such as waste reduction, energy conservation, recycling,
carpooling, etc.
Progress Reporting
The SCC should assume reporting responsibility to comply with the ACUPCC
Commitment to make climate action plan, inventory and progress reports publicly
available. The University Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory is currently a part of
the public records of the ACUPCC. The Climate Action Plan, when approved, as well
as annual progress reports will be posted there as well. Specific metrics such as
emissions per student and emissions per square footage of facilities will provide
simple annual measurements of progress; these metrics may also be compared
with other institutions to provide insights and learning.4
4
See Appendix 6 Sample Climate Action Plan Metrics
8
The Baseline: Campus Emissions Inventory
ACUPCC Commitment: Complete an emissions inventory within a year.
A Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory was completed in the summer of 2010.5
The GHG assessment has been documented using the Clean Air-Cool Planet (CACP) Calculator. This model is used by many universities within the ACUPCC group
and was selected on the basis of simplicity of use and a positive track record with
many colleges and universities. Clean Air-Cool Planet is a non-profit, non-partisan
organization that works with campuses, corporations and communities. This
organization has created the CA-CP Campus Carbon Calculator to model emissions.
There are three benefits from using the Calculator:

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory: Collecting, analyzing, and presenting
data on the emissions of greenhouse gases attributable to La Verne
operations. This step provides an essential foundation for focused, effective
collaboration on the issue of climate change at the University.

Forecasting Emissions: Projection of the university’s current trends and
alternate scenario emissions will provide a context for choosing emission
reduction goals and the projects needed to meet those goals.

Evaluate Carbon Reduction Projects: Developing a portfolio of proposed
carbon reduction projects with supporting financial analysis will create an
effective climate plan that will address identified projected emission.
As previously noted there are three levels of responsibility for emissions, also
known as Scopes, have been identified by the CA-CP model and are required by the
ACUPCC report protocol.
5
A complete copy is available on-line at www.acupcc.aashe.org
9

Scope 1 emissions are considered direct emissions from sources that are
owned and/or controlled by the University. These are emissions the
University creates on campus including on-campus stationary sources,
direct (on-campus) transportation sources, refrigerants and other
chemicals. An example is the burning of natural gas for heating.

Scope 2 emissions are considered indirect emissions from sources that are
neither owned nor operated by the University, but are directly linked to
on-campus energy consumption. Purchased electricity was the only
Scope 2 emission that was reported, as well as the most significant.

Scope 3 emissions are considered emissions attributed to the University.
They include commuting, directly financed outsourced travel, study
abroad travel, solid waste, paper waste, and waste water. Scope 3
emissions can be considered as third party emissions that result from ULV
operations.
GHG Emissions Inventory Results6
The results of the emissions inventory are expressed in terms of metric tonnes of
carbon. Chart 2 depicts the overall levels of emissions over the five year study
period. (For perspective, 13,000 metric tonnes of carbon emissions is roughly
equivalent to the pollution of 2275 cars on the road for one year.)
Net Emissions of
eCO
(Metric Tons)
Chart 2: Net Emissions of eCO2
6
13500
13000
12500
12000
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Fiscal Year
See Appendix 3 for Selected Southern California School Comparisons
10
Chart 3 from the Emissions Inventory reflects projected levels of emissions based
on growth continuing at 1% per year and assumes no action taken to reduce
emissions.
16,000
Chart 3: Total Emissions by Sector
Total Emissions
(Metric Tons eCO2)
14,000
12,000
Solid Waste
10,000
Study Abroad Air
Travel
Directly Financed
Outsourced Travel
Commuting
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
2005
Scope 2 T&D
Losses
Paper
2008
2011
2014
2017
2020
Purchased
Electricity
The breakdown of carbon dioxide equivalents for 2009 displayed how the
contributions of different sectors add to the University’s total GHG emissions.
Student commuting accounts for 43% of total GHG emissions and contributes an
average of 5,346,066 kg of CO2, 1,069.4 kg of CH4, and 368.08 kg of N2O from
2005- 2009. The greatest concern following student commuting is purchased
electricity, which accounts for 31% of total GHG emissions. Other sectors are
classified as de minimus (contribute less than 5%) and are not required to be
included in the inventory, however, these sectors have been studied so that the
University can collect a comprehensive inventory.
Chart 4 displays the breakdown of carbon dioxide equivalents for 2009
11
Chart 4
Breakdown of carbon dioxide equivalents for
2009
Solid Waste
0%
Scope 2 T&D
Losses
3%
Paper
2%
Other OnCampus
Stationary
(Natural Gas)
4%
Study Abroad Air
Travel
5%
Other Directly
Financed Travel
0%
Directly Financed
Air Travel
8%
Student
Commuting
43%
Direct
Transportation
(Gasoline Usage)
0%
Purchased
Electricity
31%
Faculty / Staff
Commuting
3%
Climate Action Plan
ACUPCC Commitment: Within two years, establish a climate action plan that sets a
target date with interim milestones for becoming carbon neutral.
The ULV Climate Action Plan has been developed to reflect an on-going examination
of emissions and reduction strategies. The Plan has been prepared at a time of
significant change for the University. Dr. Steven Morgan, the current president is
retiring after 25 years of leadership. His replacement has been chosen and will
begin work mid-year 2011. The current Master Plan is in need of updating and there
will likely be a review of the University’s academic strategic planning.
12
The Climate Action Plan establishes 2005 as a base year and identifies the actions
necessary to achieve a 17% reduction in emissions by 2020 and an 80% reduction
by 2050. These goals are consistent with objectives defined by the state of
California and are similar to the objectives defined by other reporting colleges and
universities.7
The Plan is primarily focused on reductions in emissions relative to Transportation
and Energy. Chart 5 below outlines the content of these categories.
Chart 5: Emission Sources
Emissions Source
Transportation
% of Total (2009)
59%
Energy
Other
Total
38%
3%
100%
Specific Area
Student Commuting
Air Travel
Faculty & Staff
Commuting
Study Abroad Travel
Electricity
Natural Gas
Energy Distribution loss
Reduce Paper, Solid Waste
% of Total
43%
8%
3%
5%
31%
4%
3%
3%
100%
Transportation Elements
Transportation elements present a variety of challenges. Commuting is the largest
emissions contributor at 46%. Improvements in commuting require major changes
in both behavior and transportation infrastructure. Because commuting is largely
based on individual choices of home location and mode of commuting, it is difficult
to influence shifts in behavior. Significant change is even difficult with economic
incentives.
7
See Appendix 1: Selected California Emissions Reduction plans
13
Metric Tonnes eCO2
Chart 6: Commuting Reductions
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Reduced vehicle
emissions
Reduction from
carpooling, public
transportation
Student housing, OnLine learning
Carpooling and Public Transportation
The University of La Verne promotes carpooling and public transportation to staff
and is actively expanding those efforts to students. Annual ridesharing data is
collected and reported to the South Coast Air Resources Management District as a
part of the University’s carpool program. Carpooling is expected to increase over
time as faculty and administrative staffs continue to explore potential connections.
In the longer term, light rail system will have a depot adjacent to campus. That
light rail expansion is a part of regional transportation solutions and although the
timing of funding and construction is still in the planning phase, the system is
expected to serve the La Verne campus by 2020.
Reduced Vehicle Emissions
Reductions include a projected factor of improved miles per gallon based on future
legal, economic and behavioral shifts. The California Air Resources Board has
indicated that “emissions in California are projected to decrease by over 72 percent
between 1975 and 2020, largely as a result of the State’s on road motor vehicle
emission control program. This includes the use of improved evaporative emission
control systems, computerized fuel injection, engine management systems to meet
14
increasingly stringent California emission standards, cleaner gasoline, and the
Smog Check program. ROG emissions from other mobile sources are projected to
decline between 1990 and 2020 as more stringent emission standards are adopted
and implemented.”8
Student Housing and On-line Learning
Student commuting will be reduced by increases in on-campus housing and on-line
learning programs. Student housing is currently being expanded and additional
units are included in the Master Plan. This strategy can be further enhanced by
bicycle programs, car sharing, public transportation alternatives, and considering a
limit to vehicles allowed to students living on campus.
On-line Learning has the potential to greatly impact commuting; these offerings
continue to expand and change the nature of the Universities interface with
students. Steven Lesniak, Dean, Regional Campus Administration reported that
“765 students enrolled in online courses. 266 of these 765 students were admitted
to In the Fall term 2010, the online program, were taking all of their courses online,
and they could be living anywhere. 260 of these 765 students were main campus
students who took one of their courses online along with F2F courses offered at the
main campus. 239 of these 765 students were students enrolled at one of the
regional campuses who took one of their courses online along with F2F courses at
one of the regional campuses9.” Both of these strategies are expected to continue
to expand over time.
Telecommuting alternatives for faculty and staff may also constitute a means to
emissions reduction. These options may be tailored for positions not dependent on
a presence on campus to fulfill all or some of their assigned functions.
8
http://www.arb.ca.gov/aqd/almanac/almanac09/pdf/chap309.pdf
9
Email February, 12, 2010
15
Other functions that contribute to a small extend include campus vehicles and
athletic program busing. Most on campus service vehicles are electric. The
University’s vehicle fleet consists of less than 10 vehicles (trucks, vans and SUVs).
Gasoline consumed (unleaded and diesel) by University-owned vehicle accounts for
less than 0.5% of total GHG emissions at La Verne. These areas are not currently
considered as candidates for reductions.
Energy Elements
The Climate Action Plan describes energy benchmarks in terms of conservation,
efficiency, clean energy and renewable energy sources. Each of these elements
provides for reductions in green house gas emissions and each has various
requirements for leadership and financial resources as defined in more detail in the
following sections.
On campus energy needs are currently supplied by purchased electricity and
natural gas. Emissions from these sources as of 2009 are 31% and 4% of the total
respectively. Behavior based conservation is a key element of GHG reductions. As is
often said, the most efficient way to reduce electricity usage is to turn off the lights.
Efficiency, the second path to reduction in energy usage is the result of facilities
and systems that use less energy in providing shelter, comfort and function is. This
step involves the replacement of inefficient equipment, constructing climate neutral
facilities and investing in new technologies.
In California, energy suppliers are being strongly encouraged and legally required
to provide cleaner energy by using an increasing percentage of renewable sources
in their production. On-campus renewable sources are being used successfully by
many ACUPCC institutions. The acquisition costs for these systems are continuing
to fall improving the investment attractiveness of these applications.
16
Metric Tonnes eCO2
Chart 7: Energy Reductions
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Renewable Energy
Clean Purchased
Energy
Energy efficiency
Conservation
Conservation
Reducing energy use through conservation can be stimulated by creating a cultural
understanding of the long term benefits of energy conservation. Reaching for this
objective requires involvement of students, staff and faculty. With students, it can
provide a behavioral and educational base for a lifetime view of the environment.
Recommended actions include competitions, community involvement and
educational outreach by students, student group activities, etc.
Another form of conservation includes maximizing the use of existing buildings.
With current increases in enrollment, this option may appear immediately viable;
however, a continual review of utilization should remain an on-going efficiency tool.
Initially, a review of approaches to class scheduling may yield improvements in
utilization.
Energy Efficiency
Improving the effectiveness of equipment and facilities can result in substantial
reductions in energy use. For example, the University has already achieved
reductions attributable to lower wattage lighting, central cooling towers, and so on.
17
Continued reductions are immediately available in rebate funded programs
available from energy companies. Also, the University has established a policy on
heating and air conditioning temperature controls for optimum comfort without
waste. A significant contribution will be the addition of a third chiller unit as the
campus continues to improve HVAC systems effectiveness.
The following examples of action have been identified and can be pursued to
increase efficiency within the short and long term. (Many of the more capital
intensive approaches will require inclusion in the Facilities Master Plan to be
funded.)
1. Actively pursue all opportunities to participate in rebate and incentive
programs offered by utilities.
2. Recommend moving forward with all retrofit projects that can produce a
payback of two years or less.
3. Actively consider projects over two years ROI as potential University
investments based on internal rate of return.
4. Overall control: Investigate expense benefits of well-managed
Demand/Resource Incentive agreement with SCE. Requires energy
management system in place to manage energy effectively, turning lights,
computers, equipment off when not in use.
5. Campus wide improvement of efficiency in lighting. Install occupancy
sensors on all interior lighting, dimmable ballasts on interior fluorescent
lighting, automated controls on exterior buildings and parking lots, all
exterior lighting converted to LED.
6. Install metering on all building to accurately record and respond to
variations.
7. Improve HVAC master controls to optimize holiday and summer
schedules.
8. Install heat exchangers in the centralized boiler plant to enable boiler
plant to provide both hot water and air.
18
Clean Energy
The Climate Action Plan calls for the active encouragement of the energy suppliers,
specifically the electricity provider, to increase clean power. Currently Edison
provides about 18% of the University’s electricity from renewable sources10. The
sources are listed below:
2009 Renewables Summary
CAPACITY
(MW)
Wind
DELIVERED
IN 2009
(MWh)
PERCENTAGE OF
SCE's RENEWABLE
PORTFOLIO (%)
1,583
3,528,000
26%
Geothermal
956
7,785,000
57%
Solar
382
845,000
6%
Biomass
174
Small Hydro
201
Total
3,296
899,000
561,000
13,619,000
7%
4%
100%
Edison has committed to provide 20% by 2010 and 30% by 2020.The Climate
Action Plan has assumed that additional improvements in clean energy will be
pursued after 2020 and will lead to a much greater degree of renewable energy by
producers.
Renewable Energy
10
Source: http://www.sce.com/PowerandEnvironment/Renewables/default.htm
19
Although the University has an excellent building standard for new construction,
LEED certification does not necessarily include on campus renewable energy.
Renewable energy will be an important element of the emissions reduction effort on
campus and can take the form of solar and wind electricity production and solar
water heating. Renewable energy opportunities are becoming increasingly attractive
as solar panel production costs fall. At present, active proposals for solar energy
installations include the Arts and Communication Building, the Campus Center and
the School of Law. These three projects have returns on investment of
approximately eleven years without applying rebates.11 The Arts and
Communication Building Solar Project is currently approved in the Master Plan and
is awaiting the confirmation of a significant rebate from Edison.
It is recommended that all new construction include renewable energy elements as
appropriate to the nature of the facility. The current Master Construction
Summary12 contains up to twelve new approved or proposed facilities that
represent potential for solar installations.
Other Emission Sources
This section covers a variety of emissions sources such as solid waste, paper and
food waste, and waste water. Emissions from these areas are relatively low
compared to transportation and energy; however, they all have potential for
continued improvement and bring excellent opportunities for behavior changing
actions. The Sustainable Campus Consortium is recommended as the source of
leadership for these areas.
Paper usage contributes 2% of overall emissions. At present, the University has
adapted a suggested use of recycled paper as contrasted with a mandate. Other
schools have instituted a paper allowance for students, mandatory reduction efforts
and an increase in printing forms now serviced by on-line reporting.
11
12
See Appendix 4: Current Solar Proposals
See Appendix 5: Current summary of construction projects
20
At the present time, the Food Service contract is being reviewed with the goal of
improving the economic and environmental contribution of this service. Food
service elements of renewable food resources, energy, water and waste impacts as
well as behavioral modeling can improve the overall campus performance on
environmental issues.
Solid waste reduction contests and campaigns are common on many campuses with
the leadership of student groups. Also, many schools are increasing recycling
efforts to include dorm move out events where items of value are exchanged to be
reused in the community or by incoming students.
Food service and food choices both open topics related to water and energy savings
as well as environmental aspects of food production. Again, student groups with
support from the Sustainable Campus Consortium can be involved in behavior
changing education and activities.
Water Usage and Conservation
The Climate Action plan takes an overall approach to water resources usage,
management and waste water treatment. The University is uniquely positioned to
take a leadership role in this area and the Plan contains the details necessary to
create a model campus as an example of excellence in water management and
water technology.
Water supplies statewide reflect a variable and uncertain supply, increasing demand
and inadequate structural and institutional infrastructure. Additionally, water usage
is increasingly linked to energy as water is used in energy production.13 To that
point, Ron Renner, Executive Director of the Water Research Foundation says, “We
face significant challenges with both resources; end-user water-related energy
efficiency is an important part of the water-energy nexus. Sound energy efficiency
programs are needed to maximize savings opportunities.”
13
http://www.mwdh2o.com/DocSvcsPubs/20X2020/pdf/bernstein-energy-water.pdf
21
The Plan will seek to reduce water usage and be accountable for waste water
treatment as well. While it is recognized that improvement may be anticipated from
new construction, water usage in existing buildings, facilities and landscaping
represents a large portion of the improvement potential. Therefore, in order for the
University of La Verne to minimize water consumption and wastewater production,
it is important that the University have a plan that outlines how to accomplish these
important goals in the already existing infrastructure as well as in new
development.
The campus water is purchased from La Verne Water, a local, city-owned
distributor. The city buys water from Three Valleys Water Company and the
Metropolitan Water District, which in turn obtains water from the Colorado River,
the California Aqueduct and local wells. About 30 percent of Southern California's
water supply moves across the Delta to the aqueduct system of the State Water
Project. The Delta's declining ecosystem, caused by a number of factors, has led to
historic restrictions in water supply deliveries. The result is a pressing need to both
improve the Delta environment and improve the water systems that help sustain
the state economy.14
From a legal standpoint, California State Bill SB 7 mandates 20% reduction by
2020.15 Assembly Bill 1881 also contains coming restrictions on landscaping water
usage.16 Additional actions may be anticipated as the pressure for conservation and
the costs for infrastructure improvements continue to increase.
A campus water management plan begins with an analysis of current usage and
rates. The usage information will help in the development of water usage
projections for current and planned facilities. A review of the rate structure will
14
15
16
http://www.mwdh2o.com/mwdh2o/pages/yourwater/supply/Delta/index.html
http://www.water.ca.gov/wateruseefficiency/sb7/docs/SB7-7-TheLaw.pdf
http://www.energy.ca.gov/appliances/irrigation/ab_1881_bill_20060928_chaptered.pdf
22
assure that the University is paying appropriate amounts for water and sewer
charges.
Because the campus has expanded to include a variety of buildings, a review of
metering will determine whether or not a master metering infrastructure could
result in savings and more specific controls.
Campus Water Usage and Conservation Planning Recommendations17
1. Obtain copies of water and sewer bills for at least one year. Graph the usage
and review for abnormalities.
2. Meet with water and sewer utility account manager to evaluate if the current
rate is the best rate for the facility.
3. Separately meter cooling tower and irrigation systems to avoid paying sewer
charges if feasible.
4. Determine if water meter is oversized.
5. Consider master metering to reduce customer charges if there are many
facilities separately metered.
6. Complete a comprehensive water audit of all facilities and landscaped areas.
7. Establish reduction goals for each component.
 Building personal usage:
 Install efficient toilets, shower heads (most of these have been
implemented), aerators, waterless urinals, replace old clothes washers
with Energy Star rated washers, sensor faucets, foot pedal valves,
ceramic and metering cartridges, and flow control discs.
 Behavior reductions by training personnel and posting signs
 Building systems usage
 HVAC systems review
-Implement Air Handler Condensate Recovery
-Reduce Cooling Tower water usage:
-Control blowdown using automatic controls
-Ensure drift eliminators are installed and functioning properly
-Establish an effective scale, corrosion, and bio-fouling protection plan
-Use two speed or VFDs on tower fans
-Use an automatic shut-off control
-Submeter Make-up water
 Cooking
-use low-flow pre-rinse spray valves
-replace old dish washers with Energy Star rated washers
 Landscaping
 Investigate new efficient pop-ups sprinklers
Section prepared with generous input from Nelson Martinez, LEED AP, Pacific Services,
Inc. Pasadena, California
17
23








Evaluate system wide controller applications
Develop bids for weather responsive systems
Xeriscape when possible
Use turf that requires less Water
Use subpotable Water for Irrigation
Expand use of mulching materials
Use drip irrigation systems
Evaluate roof rainwater reclamation systems
It is recommended that the University establish a work plan to complete work of
this nature to establish the benchmarks for the new normal usage and treatment
needs going forward. As changes related to the Master Plan occur, the water
conservation and treatment plan may be adjusted as required.
Educational, Research, Community Outreach

ACUPCC commitment: Integrate sustainability into the curriculum, making it
part of the educational experience. As a part of this commitment, ACUPCC
expects progress in three areas: Curriculum, Research and Community.
In Education for Climate Neutrality and Sustainability: Academic Guidance for
ACUPCC Institutions (April 2009)18, education leaders recommend action in the
following contexts:

The Content of Learning -- to reflect interdisciplinary systems thinking,
dynamics and analysis for all majors and disciplines with the same lateral
rigor across the disciplines as there is vertical rigor within them.

The Context of Learning -- to make human/environment interdependence,
values and ethics a seamless and central part of teaching of all the
disciplines, rather than isolated as a special course or module in programs for
specialists.
18
http://www.presidentsclimatecommitment.org/resources/guidance-documents/academic
24

The Process of Education -- to emphasize active, experiential, inquiry-based
learning and real-world problem solving on the campus and in the larger
community.
It is recommended that these topics are under the purview of the Provost Office
and should be reflected as appropriate in the academic strategic plan. For example,
at the University of New Hampshire, sustainability encompasses climate and
energy, ecology, food systems and culture in their CORE program (Curriculum,
Operations, Research and Engagement). What and how they teach and research;
how they govern their communities with respect to decisions regarding energy, land
use, transportation, food, art and politics; and how they respond to the challenges
of the larger communities in which they are embedded are all central questions
of sustainability.
Financing Campus Climate Action
The University is at a point of change with the arrival of a new President. The
Master Facility Plan and the academic strategic plan are likely to be reviewed,
modified or updated to some degree. It is envisioned that with the inclusion of the
Climate Action Plan as a part of the Master facility and academic strategic planning,
these programs will be included in long range projections.
Many of the long term potential energy initiatives are capital intensive. The current
Master Facility Plan includes many new facilities and retrofit projects which lend
themselves to the inclusion of renewable energy. As recommended in prior
sections, these projects will need reevaluated with energy conservation and
renewable energy measures taken into account before a long term financial plan
can be logically developed.
In the short term, the following action steps will offer some immediate progress in
reducing emissions and lowering energy costs:

Actively pursue all energy saving opportunities to participate in rebate and
incentive programs offered by utilities.
25

Recommend moving forward with all projects that can produce a payback of
two years or less.

Actively consider projects over two years ROI as potential University
investments based on internal rate of return.

Fully evaluate the long term impacts of new construction costs and operating
costs.
26
Appendix 1 Sustainability Goals
GHG
Emissions
Inventory
Submitted
Climate
Action
Plan
Submitted
Climate
Neutral
Commitment
Interim
Reduction
Goals
Baseline
Year
Cal Poly
Pomona
2006,
2009
2009
2030
none
2006
Chaffey
College
2008
Due
1/15/11
not available
(n. a.)
n. a.
n. a.
Claremont
McKenna
2008
2010
2050
30% by
2035
2008
Harvey Mudd
College
2008
Due
5/15/10
n. a.
n. a.
n. a.
no info
no info
2050
1990
levels by
2020
2008
Pitzer College
2009
Due
1/15/10
n. a.
n. a.
n. a.
Pomona
College
2008,
2009,
2010
2009
no info
20% by
2020
2008
UC Irvine
2007,
2009
2009
no info
44% by
2020,
89% by
2050
2007
2007,
Due
9/15/10
2009
TBD
10% by
2012
2007
University of
La Verne
2010
due 5-1510
to
submit by
4-11
TBD
17% by
2020
80% by
2050
2009
University of
Redlands
2008,
2010
Due
9/15/11
n. a.
n. a.
n. a.
University of
California,
Riverside
2007,
2009
2010
2050
25% by
2014
2007
University or
College
Loyola
Marymount
UCLA
Source: ACUPCC or Institutional Record
27
Appendix 2: Organizational Approaches
College or
University
Implementation
Responsibility
Structure
Cal Poly Pomona
Sustainability
Manager
Much of work conducted by students and
faculty in the John T. Lyle Center for
Regenerative Studies. Task force and subcommittees contributed in key areas.
Chaffey College
Professor of
History/Humanities
Committee formed to guide the sustainability
work.
Claremont Mc
Kenna
Director of Facilities
Environmental Concerns Committee and an
Institute focused on the environment.
Harvey Mudd
AVP Facilities
Committee appointed by President
Loyola Marymount
Sustainability
Coordinator
Environmental Stewardship & Sustainability
Committee
Pitzer College
VP/ Dean of
Students
Presidential committee on sustainability
responsible for ACUPCC commitment.
Pomona College
Asst Director,
Facilities and
Campus Services.
President's Advisory Committee on
Sustainability to monitor work and prepare
annual assessments for Board of Trustees.
Hired Sustainability Coordinator.
UCI
Vice Chancellor,
Administrative &
Business Services
Expanded a pre-existing committee, gave the
body responsibility for ACUPCC implementation.
UCLA
Sustainability
Coordinator
Campus Sustainability Committee reports to
Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost.
University of La
Verne
Chairman, Natural
Science Division
Committee: Sustainable Campus Consortium,
Consultant
University of
Redlands
Executive VP/COO
Committee chaired by EVP-COO, Vice Chair is
Director of Environmental Studies. Committee
reportable to President.
University of
California,
Riverside
Campus
Sustainability
Coordinator
Executive Committee that represents UCR at
UC office of the President for all sustainability
related matters.
28
Appendix 3: Sample Emissions Inventory Results
University or
College
Commuting
Electricity
Natural
Gas
Other
Total
2%
16%
64%
18%
100%
Cal Poly Pomona
55%
28%
15%
2%
100%
Chaffey College
35%
37%
28%
0%
100%
9%
39%
27%
25%
100%
Loyola Marymount
23%
37%
13%
27%
100%
Pitzer College
36%
21%
10%
33%
100%
Pomona College
29%
29%
21%
21%
100%
UCI
12%
31%
38%
19%
100%
UCLA
11%
32%
51%
6%
100%
UCR
39%
44%
13%
4%
100%
University of La
Verne
43%
31%
4%
22%
100%
University of Redlands
19%
19%
60%
2%
100%
Claremont Mc Kenna
Harvey Mudd College
29
Appendix 4 Proposed Solar Projects19
Arts &
Communication20
Campus Center
School of Law
60 kW
100 kW
518 kW
$270,000
$450,000
$2,590,000
Building
Electricity Usage
Offset %
66%
10%
95%
Average Annual
Utility Bill
Savings
$15,036
$25,056
$129,804
11.3 Years
11.2 Years
13.4 Years
Building
System Size
Estimated Cost
Pay-Off
19
20
Source: Pacifica Services, Pasadena, California
Currently approved in Master plan pending confirmation of rebate
30
Appendix 5: Capital Planning
Start
End
Status
Cost(000's)
Morgan Auditorium Renovation
2010 - 05
2011 - 01
Approved
$
4,200
Academic/Science Building Program Phase
2010 - 11
2011 - 04
Approved
$
250
Leo Hall Renovation Phase 1 (Org Mgmt
Offices)
2010 - 12
2011 - 01
Approved
$
125
Leo Hall Renovation Phase 2 (Classrooms)
2010 - 12
2011 - 01
Approved
$
110
College of Law Phase 2 & 3
2010 - 12
2011 - 01
Approved
$
233
Accounting Offices
2010 - 12
2010 - 12
Approved
$
34
Physics Lab Renovation (MA/FH 6,8,54,64)
2010 - 12
2011 - 03
Approved
$
100
Campus West Phase 1 (Athletics)
2011 - 01
2011 - 11
Approved
$
9,000
Athletics Trophy Case
2011 - 01
2011 - 02
Approved
$
10
Residence Hall Project
2011 - 02
2012 - 08
Approved
$
25,000
Brown Property Remediation & Demolition
2011 - 04
2011 - 04
Approved
$
380
Leo Hall Renovation Phase 3 (Exterior)
2011 - 06
2011 - 08
Approved
$
175
First Street Abandonment/Renovation
2011 - 06
2011 - 08
Approved
$
300
New Baseball Parking Construction
2011 - 06
2011 - 08
Approved
$
1,000
Solar (ACB)
2011 - 07
2011 - 09
Approved
$
180
Co curricular/Recreation Space
2011 - 11
2012 - 08
Approved
$
250
La Fetra Renovation
2011 - 07
2011 - 09
Projected
$
150
Third Chiller for University
2011 - 07
2011 - 11
Projected
$
600
Football/Soccer/Track Stadium
2011 - 11
2012 - 08
Approved
$
5,000
Campus Green
2012 - 03
2012 - 08
Projected
$
150
Stu-Han Demolition & Parking Construction
2012 - 06
2011 - 08
Approved
$
600
Woody Hall (ADA & Seismic Upgrade)
2014 - 01
2014 - 08
Projected
$
2,000
New Dining Hall
2014 - 03
2015 - 08
Projected
$
9,000
Academic/Science Building Construction
2015 - 01
2016 - 08
Projected
$
45,000
31
Parking Structure
2015 - 01
2016 - 01
Projected
$
15,000
Renovation of Davenport
2015 - 09
2016 - 06
Projected
$
3,000
Residence Hall Project #2
2016 - 01
2017 - 08
Projected
$
30,000
Campus West Phase 3 (Tennis)
2016 - 05
2017 - 01
Pending
$
3,000
SSAP Renovation - Phase 2
2016 - 06
2017 - 06
Projected
$
3,500
Dailey Theater Demolition & Construction
2016 - 06
2017 - 06
Projected
$
8,000
Brandt Renovation
2016 - 07
2017 - 07
Projected
$
6,000
Mainiero Renovation
2016 - 08
2016 - 12
Projected
$
4,000
Founders Hall Renovation
2016 - 08
2017 - 01
Projected
$
4,000
Second Street Parking
2017 - 08
2018 - 10
Projected
$
500
Mixed Use Development #2 (Oaks)
2019 - 07
2020 - 08
Projected
$
40,000
College of Law Expansion
2020 - 01
2021 - 08
Projected
$
15,000
Second Street Parking Expansion
2020 - 07
2021 - 06
Projected
$
1,000
Academic/Education Building Construction
#2
2020 - 07
2021 - 08
Projected
$
40,000
Mixed Use Development #1 (Literacy
Location)
2022 - 01
2023 - 08
Projected
$
50,000
$ 326,847
32
Appendix 6: Sample Climate Action Metrics
Full Time
Students
Equivalents
Faculty
Staff
Total
Building
Space
#
#
#
Square
feet
2005
3,521
280
399
410,162
116
2006
3,540
299
389
410,162
2007
3,480
300
374
2008
3,548
304
2009
3,593
301
Year
sq. ft./
student
sq. ft.
/
total
fte
Total
Emissions
emissions
/student
emissions
/total fte
emissions/
sq. ft.
MT eCO2
MT eCO3
MT eCO4
MT eCO5
98
12,627
3.59
3.01
0.031
116
97
13,365
3.78
3.16
0.033
410,162
118
99
13,124
3.77
3.16
0.032
387
440,162
124
104
12,867
3.63
3.04
0.029
397
480,162
134
112
12,988
3.62
3.03
0.027
2010
2011
33