View
8
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
University of South FloridaUniversity of Southern
University of Southern MaineUniversity of St. Thomas
University of Tennessee, KnoxvilleUniversity of Texas - Austin
University of Texas at DallasUniversity of Texas Health
University of Texas Rio Grande ValleyUniversity of the Sciences in Philadelphia
University of ToledoUniversity of Vermont
University of WashingtonUniversity of West Florida
University of Wisconsin - MadisonVanderbilt University
Virginia Commonwealth UniversityWake Forest University
Washburn UniversityWashington State University
Washington State University - Tri-Cities CampusWashington State University - Vancouver
Washington University in St. LouisWayne State University
Wellesley CollegeWesleyan University
West Chester UniversityWest Virginia Health Science Center
West Virginia UniversityWestern Oregon University
Westfield State UniversityWidener University
Williams CollegeWorcester Polytechnic Institute
Worcester State UniversityXavier University
Texas A&M UniversityFY16 Sustainability Final Presentation
May 2017
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.2
What We DoData, software and expertise for all phases of The Building Lifecycle
Analyze and benchmark facilities against others in the industry.
Create accurate estimates using industry-standard RSMeans data.
Use detailed data and workflow tools to competitively contract construction.
Manage change orders and construction projects with proven systems and services.
Optimize ongoing maintenance, repairs and operations.
Sustainability Solutions Introduction
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.4
Who Else Partners With Sightlines?
Member Characteristics:• 60% Private • 40% Public • 55% Signatories of ACUPCC• 45% Charter Signatories
Members Diverse in: • Size & Student Population• Setting & Climate Zone• Energy Sources & Uses
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.5
TAMU’s Peer Comparison GroupTAMU is not an ACUPCC signatory
Institution SizeTechnical
Complexity (1-5)Climate
ZoneUrbanization
American University 2.8M GSF 3.8 3 Large City
Arizona State University 7.7M GSF 3.6 5Urban Fringe of a Large City
Clemson University 4.2M GSF 3.4 4Urban Fringe of a Mid-Size City
George Mason University 7.7M GSF 3.5 3Urban Fringe of a Large City
The University of Alabama 14.3M GSF 3.3 5 Mid-Size City
University of Arkansas 4.1M GSF 3.2 4 Mid-Size City
University of Denver 4.7M GSF 2.9 2 Large City
Virginia Commonwealth University
7.1M GSF 3.2 4 Mid-Size City
Comparative Considerations
Size, technical complexity, region, geographic location,
and setting are all factors included in the selection of
peer institutions
Schools in BOLD are ACUPCC signatories
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.6
Components of TAMU’s Emissions Profile
Scope 1
Direct GHGs
• On-Campus Stationary (Cogen plant and other)
• Vehicle Fleet Fuel
• Refrigerants
• Fertilizer
Scope 2
Upstream GHGs
• Purchased Electricity
Scope 3
Indirect GHGs
• Faculty/Staff/ Student Commuting
• Directly Financed Air & Ground Travel
• Study Abroad Travel
• Solid Waste
• Wastewater
• Paper Purchasing
• Transmission & Distribution Losses
Emissions Summary
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.8
Overall Reduction in Emissions Since 2004Emissions increasing since FY13
0
100,000
200,000
300,000
400,000
500,000
600,000
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
MTC
DE
Total Emissions Over Time
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3
19% reduction in emissions
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.9
Great Improvements Despite Growing Campus
-40%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
% c
han
ge f
rom
FY0
4
Change in Emissions vs. Change in Campus Size and PopulationIndexed to FY2004
Gross Emissions Campus GSF Campus Population FTE
+47%
+40%
-19%
Emissions increasing with campus density since FY13
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.10
Benchmarking Emissions & Source DataTwo ways to normalize emissions for comparison
GHG Emissions per 1,000 GSF
Stresses intensity of operations.
Gross GHG Emissions
Total GSF in FootprintX 1,000
GHG Emissions per Student FTE
Stresses efficient use of space.
Gross GHG Emissions
Total Student FTE
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.11
Historical Trending of Normalized TAMU EmissionsMore substantial reduction when looking at emissions per student educated
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
MTC
DE/
GSF
Gross Emissions – Per GSF
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
MTC
DE/
Stu
den
t
Gross Emissions – Per Student FTE
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.12
Distribution of Emissions by Level of ControlFY2016 emissions by source and scope
37%
34%
29%
Emissions by Scope
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3
132,558 10,858
- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000MTCDE
Scope 1 Sources
Co-gen Plant Other On-Campus Stationary Direct Transportation Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture
1,5
62
34,926 32,849 41,307 10,760
- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000MTCDE
Scope 3 Sources
Commuting Travel Waste/Wastewater Paper Purchases T&D Losses
142,299
- 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000MTCDE
Scope 2 Sources
Purchased Electricity
Emissions Comparison
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.14
TAMU is Least Dense Compared to PeersDensity factor has an effect on emissions comparisons
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
TAMU 04 TAMU 16 A B C D E F G H
Use
rs/1
00
,00
0 G
SF
Density Factor
Peer average
Ordered by Density Factor
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.15
TAMU Reduced Emissions at Greater Rate Than PeersTAMU added more to campus space and population while decreasing emissions
40%
26%
47%
37%
-19%
5%
-30%
-20%
-10%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
TAMU Peers% C
han
ge f
rom
FY0
4
Change on TAMU’s Campus vs. PeersIndexed to FY04
Space Population Gross Emissions
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.16
TAMU Has High Emissions Compared to Peers
0
5
10
15
20
25
TAMU A B C D E F G H
MTC
DE/
GSF
Gross Emissions – Per GSF
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Peer Avg
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TAMU A B C D E F G H
MTC
DE/
Stu
den
t
Gross Emissions – Per Student Educated
While being less dense, TAMU still has more emissions than peers
Ordered by Density Factor
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.17
Cogeneration Drives TAMU Scope 1 Emissions
38%
13%
49%
TAMU FY16 Emissions by Scope
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3
18%
49%
33%
Peer FY16 Emissions by Scope
Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3
Utilities – Scope 1 & 2
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.19
TAMU’s Energy Consumption Higher than Peers
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
BTU
/GSF
(Th
ou
san
ds)
TAMU’s Utility Consumption
Stationary Fuel Purchased Electric
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
BTU
/GSF
(Th
ou
san
ds)
Peer Utility Consumption
Total energy, not regional adjusted
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.20
Putting Technical Complexity Context
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
160,000
180,000
200,000
A B C D E F G H TAMU
BTU
/GSF
TAMU Utility Emissions Compared to Peers
Scope 1 Scope 2
TAMU has the most energy consumption even though less technically complex
Ordered by Technical Complexity
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.21
Total Utility Emissions Decreased 27%
0
50,000
100,000
150,000
200,000
250,000
300,000
350,000
400,000
450,000
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
MTC
DE
Utility Emissions
Scope 1 Scope 2
Plant Renovation No Cogen
Continued decreases through both consumption and intensity improvements
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
10,000
12,000
14,000
16,000
18,000
20,000
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
MTD
CE
Other Scope 1 Emissions
Direct Transportation Refrigerants Agriculture
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.22
Other Scope 1 Emissions Are Small Portion of TotalDirect Transportation is largest contributor to other Scope 1 Emissions in FY16
97%
3%
Emissions by Scope
Everything Else Other Scope 1
Scope 3
0
20,000
40,000
60,000
80,000
100,000
120,000
140,000
MTC
DE
Scope 3 Emissions
Commuting Travel Waste Paper T&D
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.24
Scope 3 Emissions Have Increased Since FY13Commuting emissions have doubled since FY04
74%
26%
TAMU FY16 Emissions
Everything Else Scope 3
10% increase in Scope 3 emissions since FY2004
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.25
Updated Commuting DataCommuting emissions make up larger portion of emissions mix
3%
97%
FY04
Commuting Emissions All Other
7%
93%
FY12
Commuting Emissions All Other
8%
92%
FY16
Commuting Emissions All Other
0.00
0.50
1.00
1.50
2.00
2.50
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
MTC
DE/
FTE
Commuting Emissions
Students Employees
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.26
Student vs. Employee Commuting EmissionsStudents contribution fewer emissions relating to commuting
47%
53%
FY04
65%
35%
FY16
Students Employees
Commuting Emissions
Mix
65%
35%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FY04 FY12 FY16
Employee commuting Mix
Carbon Free Mass Transit Carpool Drive Alone
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FY04 FY12 FY16
Student commuting Mix
Commuting Distance: FY04: 5 miFY12: 8 miFY16: 5 mi
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.27
Students Are Most Carbon Intensive Over TimeFY16 Commuting Emissions: 34,926 MTCDE
65%
35%Commuting Distance:
FY04: 5 miFY12: 9 miFY16: 6 mi
Waste Profile
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.29
TAMU’s Has A Larger Waste Profile Than Peers
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
Lbs/
Cam
pu
s U
ser
Waste Production
TAMU Peers
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
TAMU Peers
Waste Diversion Rates
Landfilled Recycled Composted Other Diversions
© 2017 Sightlines, LLC. All Rights Reserved.30
Total Waste Emissions are Increasing
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
45,000
FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16
MTC
DE
TAMU Waste Emissions
FY16 waste emissions are back to FY06 levels
Recommended