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 University Xavier University

Yeshiva University Youngstown State University

FY2013 Presentation Saint Mary’s College of California

December 4, 2013

Peer Institutions

2

Go-Green Measurement and Analysis Members • Sightlines has approximately 50 Go-Green Members • Approximately two-thirds are private • Approximately one-third are public • Approximately two-thirds have signed the ACUPCC • Approximately forty percent are Charter Signatories

Go-Green Peer Institutions

Babson College

Bentley University

Loyola University Maryland

Siena College

University of the Redlands

University of the Pacific

University of San Francisco

Peer Group Based On • Size • Technical complexity • Urban setting

Sources of Emissions Collected carbon emissions at Saint Mary’s College of California

3

Scope 1 – Direct GHGs

• On-campus Stationary – Natural Gas

• Vehicle Fleet

• Agriculture

Scope 2 – Upstream GHGs

• Purchased Electricity

Scope 3 – Indirect GHGs

• Faculty/Staff/ Student Commuting

• Directly Financed Air Travel

• Study Abroad Travel

• Solid Waste

• Wastewater

• Paper

• Transmission & Distribution Losses

Key topics

• Review the carbon inventory with the additions of 2012 and 2013. • Discuss historical changes taken into account with the most recent collection. • Overall a consistent profile, which fluctuates with key factors such as utility use

and travel.

SMCC’s Emissions Profile

• Carbon Mitigation is to reduce the overall campus emissions through a plan and by setting targets.

• Review the opportunities at SMCC to continue energy reductions as well as other opportunities for more community involvement

Discuss Carbon Mitigation

• Evaluate ways peer institutions are reducing their total emissions profile and whether the options are viable for SMCC.

Opportunities for Carbon Mitigation

On-Campus Stationary

Combustion 24.3%

Direct Transportation

2%

Agriculture 0.1% Purchased

Electricity 21%

Employee Commuting

6%

Student Commuting

7%

Directly Financed Air

Travel 24.5%

Study Abroad Air Travel

5.6% Solid Waste

9%

Wastewater 0.2%

FY13 Carbon Emissions By Type

Total FY13 Gross Emissions: 16,259 MTCDE

5

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

10,000

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

Carbon Emissions by Scope

FY04 FY13

-

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

0

2,000

4,000

6,000

8,000

10,000

12,000

14,000

16,000

18,000

FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013

Cam

pus

GSF

MTC

DE

Longitudinal Gross Emissions

Utilities Other Direct Indirect GSF

Longitudinal Gross Emissions Increased emissions due to more effective tracking

6

Snapshot of FY13 Profile In-line for the number of students on campus

Carbon Mitigation

Measuring the Carbon Management Hierarchy Tracking progress against neutrality and interim targets

AVOID

REDUCE

REPLACE

OFFSET

ACTIVITY

INTENSITY

-

2,000.0000

4,000.0000

6,000.0000

8,000.0000

10,000.0000

12,000.0000

14,000.0000

16,000.0000

18,000.0000

20,000.0000

2004 Activity Intensity Offsets 2013 Avoidance

MTC

DE

Net Change in GHGs by Portfolio

Carbon Mitigation to Date Tracking historical changes and interim targets

Gro

ss G

HG

s

Net

GH

Gs:

7%

In

crea

se

Impact of Increasing Density:

712 MTCDE

-11% +18% 0% 5%

Carbon Management Hierarchy Developing a plan for neutrality and interim targets

Carbon Mitigation Portfolios: 1. AVOIDANCE

• Preventing additional activities before they start – a key indicator of future performance

• Example: Increasing space utilization instead of building or acquiring new space

AVOID

REDUCE

REPLACE

OFFSET

ACTIVITY

INTENSITY

Avoidance Finding the right balance of space utilization

Space Utilization

More efficient

Less efficient

Density Factor

Avoidance: Reduced load per student

Carbon Management Hierarchy Developing a plan for neutrality and interim targets

Carbon Mitigation Portfolios: 1. AVOIDANCE

• Preventing additional activities before they start – a key indicator of future performance

• Example: Increasing space utilization instead of building or acquiring new space

2. ACTIVITY • Reducing an existing level of activity • Example: Fewer BTUs consumed; fewer miles traveled

AVOID

REDUCE

REPLACE

OFFSET

ACTIVITY

INTENSITY

Utilities In Context Saint Mary’s energy consumption compared to national trends

37%

Low Growth Group

4%

-1%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

Campus GSF Gross Utility Use

SMCC % Change 2008-2013

Sightlines’ Campus Energy Target Analysis: • 227 institutions over six years • Size range: 43k – 33.5M GSF • Total analysis GSF: 820M GSF

• Steady State: ± 2% growth in GSF • Low Growth: 2.1 – 10.5% • High Growth: > 10.5%

Reduced Consumption

68% Increased Consumption

Target reductions to reach peer levels

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013

BTU

/GSF

Total Utility Consumption

Fossil Fuel Electric Peer Average

Activity: On-campus reductions IFP totals by Investment Criteria

$42.2

$8.9

$2.1

$20.3

$6.8

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Total Need

Programmatic Improvement

Safety / Code

Reliability

Asset Preservation

Economic Opportunity

Activity: Economic Opportunity Projects identified to address the needs within each portfolio

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

Historic Residential NorthAcademic

District

Athletics Core Support

Economic Opportunity by Portfolio Projects identified in the IFP list that can help reduce utility consumption: Update and expand the utility loop:

• Convert steam to hot water • Expand cooling capabilities

Replace old heating/cooling

systems: • Upgrade independent heating

systems to more energy efficient systems.

• Eliminate inefficient cooling systems.

Investigate opportunities for energy conservation through updated envelop projects:

• Energy efficient windows • New roofing

High on-campus activity with air travel Based on travel in 2013, assumed similar patterns historically

0100200300400500600700800900

1,000

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013M

TCD

E/1M

mile

s

Air Travel Carbon Intensity

-

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

4,500

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

10.0

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013C

ampu

s U

sers

Mill

ions

Types of Air Travel

Directly Financed Air Miles Study Abroad Miles Users

2013 data collected from purchasing records combined Study Abroad and all other purchased air travel. Utilized reporting on number of students & destinations for breaking out the Study Abroad miles from the total.

Carbon Management Hierarchy Developing a plan for neutrality and interim targets

Carbon Mitigation Portfolios: 1. AVOIDANCE

• Preventing additional activities before they start – a key indicator of future performance

• Example: Increasing space utilization instead of building or acquiring new space

2. ACTIVITY • Reducing an existing level of activity • Example: Fewer BTUs consumed; fewer miles traveled

3. INTENSITY

• 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

AVOID

REDUCE

REPLACE

OFFSET

ACTIVITY

INTENSITY

Summary of Carbon Mitigation Performance Examining how other institutions are reducing their emissions

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A B SMCC D E F G H

Distribution of Reductions by Strategy

Activity Intensity Offsets

-60%-50%-40%-30%-20%-10%

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

A B SMCC D E F G H

Net GHGs Change to Date

Institutions ordered by tech rating

Carbon Management Hierarchy Developing an action plan to reduce the SMCC’s carbon emissions

1. AVOIDANCE • The current density levels imply a potential need for more space for the

growth of the college, but conducting a utilization study to ensure the space is being effectively occupied may slow the need for new space.

• As new space is discussed for campus growth, consider the impact the space will have on the Emissions Profile.

2. ACTIVITY

• SMCC has reduced the utility consumption by 1.4% since 2008, but there is an opportunity to reduce levels even further.

• Develop a Project Portfolio to target and manage energy efficiency projects over the next 10 years to lower the utility consumption.

• Evaluate travel policies to investigate less carbon intense options still supporting College initiatives.

3. INTENSITY

• Survey campus users in the Spring to re-evaluate commuting trends.

4. OFFSETS • Investigate options for offsets within the current campus use capacity.

AVOID

REDUCE

REPLACE

OFFSET

ACTIVITY

INTENSITY

Questions & Comments