Upload
sightlines
View
436
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Sightlines sustainability expert Jeff Murphy explores national energy performance trends. See the trends for energy use, energy use per square foot, and energy use per campus user and learn how some campuses are setting themselves apart in reducing their numbers.
Citation preview
1
National Energy Trends:How do YOU Measure Success
Presented by:Jeff Murphy, Manager of Go‐Green ServicesSightlines, LLC
University of HartfordUniversity of Idaho
University of Illinois at ChicagoUniversity of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign
The University of MaineUniversity of Maine at Augusta
University of Maine at FarmingtonUniversity of Maine at Machias
University of Maine at Presque IsleUniversity of Maine at Fort Kent
University of MarylandUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst
University of Massachusetts DartmouthUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell
University of MichiganUniversity of Minnesota
University of Mississippi Medical CenterUniversity of Missouri
University of Missouri ‐ Kansas CityUniversity of Missouri ‐ St. Louis
University of New HampshireUniversity of New HavenUniversity of North TexasUniversity of Notre Dame
University of OregonUniversity of Pennsylvania
University of PortlandUniversity of Redlands
The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett BayThe University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence
The University of Rhode Island, KingstonUniversity of RochesterUniversity of San Diego
University of San FranciscoUniversity of St. Thomas (TX)University of Southern Maine
University of Southern MississippiUniversity of the Pacific
University of the Sciences in PhiladelphiaUniversity of VermontUpper Iowa University
Utica CollegeVirginia Commonwealth University
Virginia Department of General ServicesWashburn University
2
Sightlines Profile – who we are and what we doWorking with 231 institutions in 36 states; analyzing over 835 million GSF annually
Represents State System
Represents Flagship Institutions
Analysis based on:• Common Vocabulary• Consistent Methodology• Context Through Benchmarking 2
3
Agenda
1. Why energy?
2. How are you measuring your success?
3. How do we measure your success – a family of metrics
4. National trends across these metrics
5. Who is leading the pack and how are they doing it?
3
4
Energy as the institutional intersection
Energy Use
Building Operations
Program Demands
Campus Sustainability
Capital Investment
Operating Budget
Occupant Engagement
5
Scope 1 –Direct GHGs
•On-Campus Stationary (Fossil Fuels & Biomass)
•Vehicle Fleet
•Agriculture
•Refrigerants
Scope 2 –Upstream GHGs
•Purchased Electricity
•Purchased Steam
•Purchased Chilled Water
Scope 3 –Indirect GHGs
•Employee/ Student Commuting
•Directly Financed Air Travel
•Study Abroad Travel
•Ground Travel
•Solid Waste
•Wastewater
•Paper
•Transmission & Distribution Losses
60‐80% of a “typical” campus’ GHGs are from energy
Campus GHG sourcesEffective energy management is critical to sustainable campus operations
5
6
Traditional ways of measuring success on energyNo single metric can tell the entire story of campus energy management
6
HDD/CDD
7
Evaluating comprehensive successIdentifying a family of metrics
Total MMBTU
•Risk Exposure•Resiliency•Cost Savings•Social/Enviro. Benefits
BTU/GSF
•Operational Efficiency
BTU/Student
•Efficient Space Utilization
7
8
National trends in higher educationHow do each of these trends impact our family of energy metrics?
0.0%
0.2%
0.4%
0.6%
0.8%
1.0%
1.2%
1.4%
1.6%
1.8%
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Annual Growth in GSF
2.88
2.89
2.90
2.91
2.92
2.93
2.94
2.95
2.96
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Increasing Building Complexity
395
400
405
410
415
420
425
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Increasing Density Factor
Users/ 1
00K GSF
Tech Rating (1‐5)
8
Drives BTU
s Higher
Drives
BTU/G
SF Higher Pu
shes
BTU/FTE
Lower
9
Gross energy useThe most challenging energy metric to reduce
35%
19%
46%
Total MMBTU Energy Consumption
Decreasing Flat Increasing
*Decreasing is ‐3% or less since FY2006; Flat is ‐2% to +2% since FY2006; Increasing is +3% or more since FY2006
Total MMBTU
Institution Count: 82Average: 12% decreaseMedian: 9% decreaseRange: 3% ‐ 51% decreaseAverage Energy Savings Since 2006:
$2.62M
Institution Count: 106Average: 15% increaseMedian: 12% increaseRange: 3% ‐ 75% increaseAverage Additional Cost Since 2006:
$5.48M9
Database Average: +3% since 2006
10
Operational efficiencyThe traditional benchmark of success
51%
18%
31%
Total BTU/GSF Energy Consumption
Decreasing Flat Increasing
*Decreasing is ‐3% or less since FY2006; Flat is ‐2% to +2% since FY2006; Increasing is +3% or more since FY2006
BTU/GSF
Institution Count: 117Average: 13% decreaseMedian: 10% decreaseRange: 3% ‐ 46% decreaseAverage Energy Savings Since 2006:
$4.12M
Institution Count: 71Average: 12% increaseMedian: 9% increaseRange: 3% ‐ 41% increaseAverage Additional Costs Since 2006:
$3.59M10
Database Average: ‐3% since 2006
11
Efficient space utilizationAdding students won’t necessarily lead to higher energy usage
57%
13%
30%
Total BTU/Student Energy Consumption
Decreasing Flat Increasing
*Decreasing is ‐3% or less since FY2006; Flat is ‐2% to +2% since FY2006; Increasing is +3% or more since FY2006
BTU/Student
Institution Count: 131Average: 16% decreaseMedian: 14% decreaseRange: 3% ‐ 53% decreaseAverage Energy Savings Since 2006:
$5.73M
Institution Count: 69Average: 14% increaseMedian: 11% increaseRange: 3% ‐ 65% increaseAverage Additional Costs: Since 2006
$1.08M11
Database Average: ‐5% since 2006
12
The “Triple Crown” in energy reductionsSubstantial portion of our database is reducing in all three categories
30%
15%24%
31%
Database Achievement in Energy Metrics
Decreasing in All 3 Decreasing in 2Decreasing in 1 Decreasing in 0
Institution Count: 69“The Reducers”
12Found 4 overlapping schools
“Elite Reducers”Found 4 overlapping schools
“Elite Reducers”
Identified the top 10 in each category
13
Profiling the “Reducers”
14
Where are these “Reducer” institutions located?“Reducers” are geographically diverse
“The Reducers” “The Elite Reducers” States w/o Sightlines Members
15
What type of institution are these “Reducers”
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Private Public
“Reducers” by Type of Institution
“Elite Reducer” Institution
16
How heavily utilized are the “Reducers” buildings?“Reducers” building utilizations are quite diverse
Sightline
s Distribution
Database Distribution: Density Factor
21 36 3 9
“Elite Reducer” Institution
Users/100K GSF
17
What size are these “Reducer” institutions?“Reducers” group diverse in institution size: 49K – 23M GSF
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
Under 1M GSF 1 ‐ 2M GSF 2 ‐ 5M GSF Over 5M GSF
“Reducers” by Size Category
“Elite Reducer” Institution
18
Campus expansion impedes gross energy reductionsLimiting campus expansion is critical to reducing energy usage
‐20%
‐15%
‐10%
‐5%
0%
5%
10%
Campus Expansion vs. Energy Reductions
Campus Expansion by Size Category
Energy Reductions by Size Category
Under 1M GSF 1 ‐ 2M GSF 2 ‐ 5M GSF Over 5M GSF
% Cha
nge Since 2006
19
Profiling the “Elite Reducers”
20
Elite Reducers: Cheyney University of Pennsylvania1M GSF, declined 9% since FY06
0
200
400
600
800
1,000
1,200
020406080100120140160180
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
MMBT
Us in Tho
usan
ds
Gross Energy Use and Cost
Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF
Since 2006:51% Reduction in Gross Energy UseAvoided $1.7M in Energy Costs
Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution
2006 2006 2011
Datab
ase Av
erage
Campus G
SF in Thousands
Keys to Success•Centralized Decentralized
•ESCo Partnership
•Envelope Upgrades
•Variable Speed Drives/ Variable Air Volumes
•New Energy Management System
21
Elite Reducers: Olin College located in New England400K GSF and flat since FY06, but increased campus population by 26%
050100150200250300350400450
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
MMBT
Us in Tho
usan
ds
Gross Energy Use and Cost
Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF
Since 2006:42% Reduction in Gross Energy UseAvoided $2.2M in Energy Costs
Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution
2011
Datab
ase Av
erage
Campus G
SF in Thousands
2006 2006
Keys to Success•Variable Speed Drives
•Autoflame Technology
•Occupancy Sensors
•Occupant Engagement
22
Elite Reducer: Delta State University located in MS1.7M GSF with some fluctuation since FY07
02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800
0
50
100
150
200
250
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
MMBT
Us in Tho
usan
ds
Gross Energy Use and Cost
Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF
Since 2007:39% Reduction in Gross Energy UseAvoided $3.3M in Energy Costs
Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution
2011
Datab
ase Av
erage
Campus G
SF in Thousands
2007
Keys to Success•Infrastructure Replacement
•Envelope Upgrades
•Lighting Upgrades
•Set Backs/ Shut Downs
•Space Management
23
Elite Reducer: Cape Cod Community College in MA340K GSF and flat since FY07, but increased student population by 7%
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
MMBT
Us in Tho
usan
ds
Gross Energy Use and Cost
Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF
Since 2007:25% Reduction in Gross Energy UseAvoided $2.9M in Energy Costs
Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution
2011 Datab
ase Av
erage
Campus G
SF in Thousands
2007
Keys to Success•Heat Pumps
•Lighting Upgrades – Interior/Exterior
•Occupancy Sensors
•Shut Downs
•Removal of Vestibule Heaters
24
What’s the common thread – physical profile?All of these institutions have limited their growth in campus GSF
Tech Rating – Database Distribution
Density Factor– Database Distribution
Cheyney Olin Delta State Cape Cod
% of GSF Over 25 Yrs – Database Distribution
25
What’s the common thread – project spending?High capital spend is not a pre‐requisite for success
Cheyney Olin Delta State Cape Cod
0.41
1.61
2.81
4.01
5.21
6.41
7.62
8.82
10.02
11.22
12.42
13.62
14.83
16.03
17.23
Project Spending – Database Distribution
$/GSF
26
What’s the common thread – project selection?Elite Reducers are prioritizing investments into building systems and envelopes
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
Capital Project Selection
Envelope/Mechanical/Utility Infra. Space Renewal and Programming Updates
Database Average
27
What is the common thread – people & process?Elite Reducers creating culture of energy management supported by policy
LEED‐NC & LEED‐EBOM X XESCo Partnership X X
Energy Management Staff X X X
Policy Incentives X X X
27
28
National Energy Trends – key takeaways
You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Measure – Comprehensively:•Track and evaluate energy progress through a family of metrics to identify and execute all opportunities
Keep Up With The Jones – You Can Do It:•Nearly 70 schools are reducing across all 3 energy metrics•Success is occurring at all types of institutions all across the country
No Silver Bullet – Substantial Capital Not Always Required:•Success does require management for change:
•Fact‐based targets•Buy‐in and process•Clear policy incentives
28
29
Questions & Discussion
For More Info Contact Us:Jeff Murphy, Manager of Go‐Green Services
Phone: 845‐790‐9244Email: [email protected]
29