2010

Reducing Occupant-Controlled Electricity Consumption in Campus Buildings

K i l l - A - W a t t LEADERSHIP DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Executive summary…………………………………………………………………………………………………………1

Acknowledgements…………………………………………………………………………………………………………2

Project sponsors and team……………………………………………………………………………………………..3

Introduction and project overview……………………………………………………………………….…………4

Methods…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………6

Findings………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….8

Current campus practices…………………………………………………………………………………...8

External best practices.……………………………………………………………………………………..12

An internal case study: Stanley Hall.………………………………………………………………….18

An external case study: University of Michigan…………………………………………………20

Utilizing social marketing and behavior change theory………………………………........23

Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………………………………..29

Suggested next steps for OE Energy Management Design Team…………………………………..36

Bibliography………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….37

Appendices………………………………………………………………………………………………….………………..41

Appendix A: Project charter…………………………………..……………………….…………………41

Appendix B: Complete list of interview subjects………………………….….…………………45

Appendix C: Internal and external interview questions……………….…………………….46

Appendix D: Planet Blue results 2008 & 2009…………………………….………….………….48

Appendix E: Stanley Hall survey………………………………………………….…..…….………….51

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR Findings………………………….…….……………..59

Appendix G1: Dashboards from other universities….…………..…..……………………….72

Appendix G2: Samples of other university materials…………………………………………76

Appendix H: Behavior change theory………………………………………………….…………….79

Appendix I: Organizational chart and job descriptions………………….……..……………81

Appendix J: Organizational chart and job descriptions (aspirational)……….……....83

 

 

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

 

 UC Berkeley spent $16.39 million on purchased electricity in 2008–09 and is expected to spend 

more than $17.1 million in 2009–10. In an effort to reduce electricity consumption, the campus has 

been an active participant in PG&E’s Strategic Energy Partnership (SEP), a program that has provided 

significant rebates for energy retrofit projects across campus. The installation of more efficient‐energy 

consuming equipment in buildings, including energy‐efficient lighting and building retro‐commissioning 

projects, have provided savings to the campus; however, there is much more to be done. 

  Operational Excellence (OE), an initiative focused on improving our campus's operational 

effectiveness and reducing the costs of campus operations, recently released a report recommending, 

among other things, that the campus accelerate the installation of reporting systems that provide real‐

time data on energy use, and establish an initiative to reduce occupant‐controlled electricity 

consumption. The OE report identified the potential for the campus to save $3–4 million in the area of 

energy management. After conducting extensive research on current campus practices, best practices at 

peer institutions, and effective social marketing and behavior‐change theory, we settled on three 

recommendations that, upon implementation, we believe will significantly reduce occupant‐controlled 

electricity consumption on the Berkeley campus and help the campus meet the cost‐saving targets 

identified by OE.  

We propose that one program office, led by a chief energy officer with dedicated staff, be 

established that is responsible for an energy reduction awareness initiative in buildings that have 

already had reporting systems installed. This initiative will include a branded campaign that will 

incorporate the best practices in social marketing and behavior‐change theory that were indentified and 

included in our research and recommendations. The program office will also be charged with 

operationalizing existing guidelines and institutionalizing policies that have already been adopted (but 

not internalized) by the campus by collecting data and assessing outcomes after the rollout of a pilot 

program. Our recommendations include specific strategies aimed at changing attitudes and behaviors 

toward electricity usage by executing a building‐by‐building campaign to educate and engage building 

occupants with specific information about their building’s energy use. 

These recommendations will create a campus climate where energy awareness and 

conservation becomes a social norm. Combined with energy efficiency upgrades, this recommended 

initiative will help position the campus to realize the $3–4 million in cost‐savings identified in the OE 

report. In addition, it will help the campus achieve Chancellor Robert Birgeneau’s commitment to 

reduce green house gas emissions to 1990 levels by the year 2014, and positively impact the overall 

economic, environmental, and social goals of the campus. 

 

 

 

 

2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 

  The Kill‐A‐Watt team would like to acknowledge and thank the following individuals for their 

support and assistance:  

Pamela Brown 

Judy Chess  

Chris Christofferson 

Ed Denton 

Inette Dishler 

Lisa McNeilly 

Sara Shirazi 

 We would also like to extend our appreciation to our families, supervisors, co‐workers, building 

managers across campus, student groups, faculty, administrators, the dozens of colleagues on campus who answered our countless questions throughout the research and development of this report, as well as the staff at the University of Michigan. And last but not least, we would like to thank Andrea Lampros who volunteered many hours of her time editing this report.  We could not have completed this project without the interest and support of those who so generously gave of their time.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3

PROJECT SPONSORS AND TEAM 

 

Project Sponsors  

Ed Denton, Vice Chancellor – Facilities Services  

Chris Christofferson, Assistant Vice Chancellor – Physical Plant‐Campus Services  

Functional Sponsor  

Sara Shirazi, Assistant Director, Sustainability and Engineering Services  

Process Consultant  

Pamela Brown, Analytical Studies Coordinator, Office of Planning and Analysis  

Project Team:  Kill‐A‐Watt  

Livier Bejinez, Administrative Director, Fall Program for Freshman, UC Extension  

Erica Browne, Health Educator, University Health Services  

Denise Cronin, Strategy Management Consultant, Business and Administrative Services  

Adrian Diaz, Assistant Director, State Government Relations,  Office of Government & Community Relations 

 Riff Khan, Programmer/Analyst, Office of the Deputy Chief Information Officer 

 Marly Norris, Senior Associate Director, Corporate and Foundation Relations, University Relations 

 Xuan Quach, Assistant Director, Rotary Center for International Studies in Peace and Conflict Resolution, 

International Area Studies  

Kate Wees, Director, Berkeley Art Studio  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4

INTRODUCTION AND PROJECT OVERVIEW 

  On April 10, 2010, the Operational Excellence (OE) Steering Committee, with support from a 

Working Group of 25 Berkeley staff and Bain & Company, presented a diagnostic report to Chancellor Robert Birgeneau entitled “Achieving Operational Excellence at the University of California, Berkeley.” The committee analyzed data from across the campus, took input from hundreds of members of the campus community, and assessed best practices at public and private institutions. Five key areas were identified that offered significant opportunities to improve our campus's operational effectiveness and reduce the costs of campus operations. Those areas include procurement, organizational simplification, IT, energy management, and student services. On May 3, 2010, the Chancellor issued a formal response to the report announcing his support for the recommendations. In the area of energy management, the report identified potential savings of $3–4 million.   

 UC Berkeley currently spends approximately $35 million on energy annually1.  Of that $35 

million, approximately $17.1 million2 is expected to be spent on electricity consumption in the current fiscal year. Following two consecutive years of drastic cuts from the State’s budget allocation to the University, the OE energy management initiative is fiscally responsible and supports the Chancellor’s commitment to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2014. This report is intended to assess the current efforts to reduce occupant‐controlled electricity use on campus and to provide detailed actionable recommendations that supplement the OE findings and recommendations as they relate to energy management.  

 The OE report presented three general recommendations to achieve the $3–4 million savings 

annually under the energy management initiative:  1. Accelerate infrastructure improvement projects including the installation of metering and reporting systems. 2. Establish an incentive system to reward reduced energy consumption. 3. Refocus energy management resources to increase accountability for reduced energy consumption. We support these recommendations.  

 This report includes specific actionable recommendations focused on strategies to reduce 

occupant‐controlled electricity use.  We define “occupant‐controlled electricity use” as: all of the electricity‐consuming devices controlled by an individual, including those that can be turned off or unplugged. We do not focus on technology or infrastructure other than to reaffirm the need for behavior change and technology and infrastructure upgrades to go hand‐in‐hand.  In particular the campus will need to invest in reporting systems, such as meters, that provide real‐time information about energy use in a given building, which are crucial to enabling energy users on campus to understand and then modify their energy use. We believe that the administration, faculty, students, and staff can effectively work toward the Chancellor’s goal of reducing greenhouse gas emissions to 1990 levels while reducing campus expenditures on electricity. 

 Objectives 

 Our specific project objectives were to:  

Identify occupant‐controlled electricity usage attitudes and behaviors on campus.                                                             1 Operational Excellence, http://berkeley.edu/oe/ 2 LDP Project Charter 

 

 

5

Conduct research on effective electricity use reduction strategies, including industry best practices. 

Provide recommendations for changing occupant‐controlled electricity use attitudes and behaviors on campus in alignment with Operational Excellence recommendations. 

Develop a strategic occupant‐controlled electricity reduction marketing plan that utilizes evidence‐based practices and appropriate incentives and disincentives.  

  

                                    

 

 

6

METHODS 

  After identifying and vetting the project objectives in our project charter (see Appendix A) with 

our sponsors, our team divided into subgroups to investigate 1) current campus practices, 2) best practices of peer institutions, and 3) research on social marketing and behavior change.  We then determined that an internal and external case study would best support the emerging recommendations for the Berkeley campus.  

1. Current Campus Practices  The current campus practices subgroup identified relevant staff, organizations, online material 

and literature by contacting the Office of Sustainability staff and searching the Berkeley campus website. A list of individuals was compiled and contacted (see Appendix B), which in turn produced additional leads to relevant staff, students, campus projects and initiatives, articles, books, and building sites to assess. The subgroup further divided the research and conducted web content analysis, building site visits, and in‐person and phone interviews with members of administrative organizations, student groups, academic units, as well as researchers and building managers. The results of this subgroup’s investigations were summarized and interpreted to provide an in‐depth assessment of the campus environment regarding energy reduction efforts.   

2. Best Practices  The best practice subgroup began their research by developing a list of institutions to target, 

generated from four primary sources: 1. The National Wildlife Campus Ecology website that posts hundreds of detailed stories about projects and initiatives at colleges and universities that reduce their carbon footprint, save money, and create a healthier environment. 2. The Green Report Card that provides in‐depth sustainability profiles for hundreds of colleges and universities. 3. The Green Schools list serve that provides a space for collaboration focused on sustainable campus operations. 4. A discussion with Lisa McNeilly, UC Berkeley Director of the Office of Sustainability. This preliminary list was shared with Sara Shirazi, Chris Christofferson, and Judy Chess for input and refinement. Research on selected institutions was then conducted by reviewing websites, articles, publications, and blogs, and by interviewing personnel at various institutions (see Appendix C).  

3. Social Marketing  

Data on social marketing best practices was collected using key informant interviews, literature review, and media content analysis.  Key informant interviews were conducted with individuals who have expertise in social marketing, energy management, and sustainability. Our interview subjects included UC Berkeley staff and industry experts who provided information on social marketing strategies and social media tools, in addition to recommendations for primary data sources — books, academic journal articles, websites, and additional key informants. The social marketing literature review was thus informed by key informant recommendations and included a variety of data sources.   

 External and Internal Case Studies   

Of the external peer institutions reviewed, University of Michigan’s environmental and energy initiative — Planet Blue — stood out as one of the most successful campuswide energy reduction 

 

 

7

initiative with a focus on changing occupant‐controlled behavior.  Our external case study team analyzed web content and interviewed UM personnel to understand the development of the Planet Blue initiative, the process followed by the Planet Blue teams, and the initiative’s successes. Launched in 2008, Planet Blue saved the University an estimated $2.3 million in less than two years (see Appendix D), while mobilizing the campus community to participate in an effort that also benefits the planet. 

 To highlight the challenges of designing and implementing an energy reduction plan at Berkeley, we 

identified a campus building where efforts to systematically curtail energy consumption have begun. We chose Stanley Hall because it is a large, mixed‐use, “24/7” operation. It is one of the biggest consumers of electricity on the campus and the building management is interested in establishing sustainable operations. Our team interviewed the building manager, who supplied the results of a survey about energy consumption among building participants. We incorporated the results of that survey into our analysis and findings (see Appendix E).   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8

CURRENT CAMPUS PRACTICES 

 Before we developed our recommendations, we looked closely at the efforts to reduce 

electricity use already underway on the Berkeley campus. We divided our interview subjects into four groups: 

 1. Administration 2. Students 3. Faculty 4. Building managers 

 We found that there are many individuals and groups on the Berkeley campus who are 

expending a great deal of effort — much of it voluntarily — on the issue of energy reduction. We determined that, overall, these efforts lack coordination despite the existence of both the University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices and Guidelines, and the Berkeley campus’s adoption of these guidelines as outlined in its 2009 Campus Sustainability Plan. Instead of teaming up to more effectively create change, individuals and groups are often not aware of each other’s existence, and in some instances, even compete for the same scarce resources. Nonetheless, the successes we discovered are truly impressive and demonstrate that the campus already has leaders who will be crucial to any campuswide effort to reduce energy use in the months and years ahead.     Herding Cats: The Office of Sustainability  

The Office of Sustainability (OS) opened its doors in January 2008. The creation of this office is one of many long‐standing efforts to move the campus toward sustainable operations and leadership in environmental stewardship. The Berkeley campus has a long history of student, staff, and faculty interest and leadership in sustainability, prompting the creation of the Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Sustainability in 2003, as well as influencing the creation of the UC system‐wide Policy Guidelines for Sustainable Practices. Clearly, the commitment and dedication on the Berkeley campus to sustainability has been strong and vibrant.  

 Along with supporting and fostering a culture of environmental sustainability, the OS provides 

the campus with analysis and reporting and acts as a central hub for news, events, and initiatives of the various efforts and groups working on sustainability projects. The efforts of the OS have resulted in tremendous benefits to the campus as it works to fulfill the Chancellor’s commitment to reduce green house gas emissions.  This office also manages CalCAP, the Sustainability Forums, and the Green Certification Program, among other programs.   

Our investigation of current sustainable practices on the campus, particularly those focused on energy savings, indicates that the task of providing coordination and awareness of these efforts at the campuswide level poses significant challenges for the OS’s two‐person staff. “Herding cats” is a fairly appropriate qualifier to describe the task of organizing the numerous efforts, projects, offices, individuals, and groups working on sustainability, to maximize their effects on savings and sustainable operations.  As we will highlight later in this report, we found that it is essential that established offices — tasked with leading and supporting the campus in making a significant culture change toward energy savings and overall sustainability — must be appropriately resourced to meet the targets set forth in the Operational Excellence report.  

 

 

9

Student‐Powered Change: Berkeley Sustainability @ Cal (BS@C)    With a $26,000 budget from Capital Projects in 2009 and a few additional small grants, this volunteer student group has had an enormous impact on campus. Trained by staff at Physical Plant, the students conduct audits to assess building resource use (water, lighting, and waste) and offer education programs to help show building inhabitants how they can reduce their environmental footprint. BS@C holds informational meetings, posts fliers, conducts competitions, tables on Sproul Plaza, and creates displays to encourage the campus community to be more sustainable.   

One example of the creative thinking of BS@C students is their energy audit of LeConte and Birge Hall. As always, the students stated their goal:  “By increasing the awareness of the importance to conserve resources, people will become more knowledgeable about what action they must take in order to save energy not only within the work office, but everywhere else as well.” The BS@C team conducted a survey of building occupants and discovered that many inhabitants used their lights to indicate their presence in the office — even when there was sufficient natural light to work. The BS@C team designed and created door hangers that allowed office occupants to signal their presence in the office, enabling them to use the overhead fluorescent lighting less frequently. The BS@C students distributed door hangers and fliers on how to conserve energy and were met with a positive response.    The incentives BS@C offers are mainly to building inhabitants for participating in a sustainability competition, taking a survey, or reducing energy use. The goal is for building inhabitants to become excited about sustainability and realize that reducing electricity use can be easy. A BS@C student leader discussed the group’s successful use of incentives:   

“It is always better to reward people/departments than to punish them, so I believe an incentive program will garner more buy‐in and enthusiasm on campus. Friendly competition among departments will get them thinking about other ways in which they could be sustainable (beyond energy use reduction). There must be both educational and operational aspects that departments can use to reduce their energy use. The campus should make signage and other educational projects available to departments. PPCS should also continue to provide structural/operational energy reduction projects to buildings and departments.”  

The Triumph of Technology: Cory Hall  

Timing, resources, and a building manager willing to take on new challenges were critical to the success of Cory Hall’s energy efforts. With initial funding from the Strategic Energy Plan, led on the Berkeley campus by Patrick MacArdle, Cory’s building manager Scott McNally was able to hire an outside firm to assess Cory Hall’s energy usage. The consulting firm — Qwest — had approximately 30 recommended tasks to implement in order to achieve a 20% reduction in electricity use in the building.  

 After the assessment, the building became part of a research project that included Lawrence 

Berkeley National Laboratory and Sacramento State University. With grant funding of approximately $150,000, researchers and students installed dense instrumentation in Cory Hall, enabling them to pinpoint where energy was being used in the building. With new technology developed by Cal’s own David Culler, McNally and his team were able to see which computers in the building were being used — not just turned on. This information gave McNally a clearer pathway to reduce energy costs. 

 

 

 

10

For example, the building has a two‐speed pump that operates in the cooling tower.  The pump could be set at 40 or 15 horsepower. For 10 years it had been set at 40. McNally conducted a test in October 2009, turning it back to the 15‐horsepower setting to determine if building occupants would detect the difference.  Not a single person complained and the pump has been set at the lower setting ever since — saving energy and money.  

 A fire in the Cory Hall MicroLab required a shutdown of all systems in the building. McNally took 

the opportunity to shut down all building computers, and only restart the ones that Culler’s research had shown were actual working units (unless faculty specifically requested that additional computers be turned back on). Again, this action was met with no complaints and resulted in lower electricity usage.  

 In our interview with McNally about the lessons learned in his efforts at Cory Hall, he spoke of 

the need for a strong working relationship among all parties on campus: building management, IT services, and Physical Plant (especially the electrical engineering team). He also had the support of key faculty, including Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences Chair Costas Spanos and Associate Chair David Culler. He mentioned Patrick MacArdle’s willingness to fund a “hunting trip” to look for ways to reduce energy costs. 

 McNally attributed the 20% reduction in electricity use at Cory Hall to a combination of the right 

supporting technology, supportive and knowledgeable faculty, passionate students willing to press faculty on research, and appropriate technology — such as the data‐collection systems.   People Power: Wurster Hall  

Combine an entrepreneurial building manager, a committed dean, engaged faculty, enthusiastic students, and energy‐efficiency retrofits, and you have the recipe for success.  Wurster Hall has seen a dramatic decline in electricity use.   

 Building manager Eli Persyck knew that there must be ways to reduce energy usage at Wurster 

Hall and his discussions with administration, faculty and students led to multiple efforts — all of them with Persyck at the center, coordinating the work. Curious about how the building occupants used and thought about energy, Persyck worked with a professor and a class in the Architecture Department who analyzed virtually every aspect of energy usage in Wurster Hall. The ensuing report — “Secret Life of Buildings”— helped inform Persyck’s plan. The investigators discovered that the building occupants were much less likely to work at night, and therefore could see the value in reducing the number of hours daily that the building was fully powered up for operation.  

 In cooperation with Capital Projects and Physical Plant, Persyck’s team was able to reduce the 

hours of operation for the building and make other system improvements. Reducing the hours of operation was just the first step. Persyck and his team explored other options that could be controlled by his office such as reducing corridor lighting during the day, converting to low‐energy bulbs, and reducing the use of fans. Most importantly, the team organized a campaign within the building to encourage occupants to lower their usage. Announced via an email message from Dean Jennifer Wolch, from the College of Environmental Design, and followed up with communications from a team of faculty and students, Wurster Hall began the most ambitious marketing effort we observed on campus. 

 Students created compelling posters that encouraged occupants to turn out the lights and in the 

case of the studio spaces (where the lighting switch system can be quite confusing), provided maps of 

 

 

11

lighting switches with signage that clearly pointed out the switches. Graduate students applied for a grant from The Green Initiative Fund (TGIF) to create a dashboard in the lobby, in order to properly illustrate energy usage in the building and to document improvements that came about with a change in behavior. 

 As a result of all these efforts, Wurster Hall experienced a significant drop in electricity use: in 

the spring of 2009, peak usage was charted at 461 kilawatt hour, the base at 129. In the spring of 2010, the peak was 346 kilawatt hours, the base 107 ‐ a reduction of 115 kilawatt hours. 

 And the work continues. Persyck has applied for additional TGIF grants to meter individual floors 

of the building, so even clearer comparisons can be made. When asked about the keys to success for this effort, several individuals told us that it was people involved at every level: support from the Dean and faculty was crucial — with an authority figure launching the campaign, more people were likely to respond. Constant, clear communication was also cited, along with student involvement. Persyck specifically mentioned the importance of tangible and measureable results in an academic setting, the “proof” that many researchers need.     

There are clearly many individuals and organizations leading efforts to reduce energy consumption on campus, as we discovered in our review of internal best practices. We can maximize results at Berkeley by looking at other institutions that have led successful campuswide efforts in a more coordinated fashion.  

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

12

EXTERNAL BEST PRACTICES 

 

  To better understand efforts undertaken nationally to reduce occupant‐controlled energy consumption, we contacted the following universities, as well as the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (LBL):  Harvard University  Univ. of California Los Angeles    University of Michigan 

Oklahoma State University  Univ. of California San Diego     University of North Carolina 

Stanford University  Univ. of Illinois Urbana‐Champaign  University of Oregon  

Texas A&M University  University of Maryland    Yale University 

We found that each of these universities essentially had the same impetus for developing an energy reduction program on their campus:  to reduce energy costs and the campus’s carbon footprint.  Campuses across the country are integrating more sustainable practices as academic research has become more energy‐use intensive and the population on campuses continues to grow.   

 We found that initiatives vary greatly from campus to campus.  Some are administered by 

facilities and operations departments (Berkeley’s equivalent of Physical Plant‐Campus Services), while some are administered by a central office of sustainability.  Others are administered through a coordinated effort from both a facilities and operations department and an office of sustainability.   The few institutions that primarily target residential housing units for occupant‐controlled energy reduction administer programs through residential life and/or student affairs offices (such is the case at UCSD, UCLA and Oregon).  

 Engagement and Support    Universities reported varying levels of support for their programs. There was general consensus from those programs that were not supported at the president or chancellor level that greater support from senior management was needed.   

High‐level support varied from funding, to setting requirements and policies, to visible participation in the program.  (See sidebar on next page for specific examples). The most successful programs are supported by the administration — with the visible involvement of the president or chancellor — and are mandated from the top down.  

 The University of Illinois reported great support at the beginning of their program, but with 

three of their six positions not funded for the next fiscal year, they have lost steam. Texas A&M reported good support from senior management, but felt the need for additional support to make greater energy reductions. At the University of Oregon, the program has the support and commitment at the Office of Housing, but lacks support from senior management and does not have the staff to fully implement and expand the program. 

 

 

 

13

All universities reported that their programs were part of their institution’s strategic plan. Behavior‐change programs were specifically identified at some universities.  Maryland’s behavior‐change reduction targets are carved out in their climate action plan.  Michigan’s Environmental & Energy Initiative lists the behavior‐change program Planet Blue separately. Several universities have policies geared toward energy‐reducing practices. UNC has passed several campus energy policies including an Energy Use Policy, Energy Efficient Purchasing Policy, and Energy Efficient Lighting Policy.  Similarly, Oregon’s Comprehensive Environmental Policy Statement and the Sustainable Development Plan include policies for energy, construction, purchasing, solid waste, landscaping, composting and planning.  Education and Outreach  

For the most part, all universities used their program websites as the main vehicle to publicize their program and communicate successes. Oklahoma used Facebook and Yale organized an annual sustainability summit to further promote their programs.  

 The feedback mechanism used by the various 

universities to communicate performance varied — from conducting individual audits and sub‐metered monitoring at Harvard and Stanford to delivery of energy/utility reports and bills at Maryland and Michigan.  Michigan also relies on electronic dashboards that can be accessed through the web to display energy consumption per building on a monthly and annual basis. Illinois and LBL have visual dashboards in one or more buildings with plans for further expansion.   

A university’s website home page offers an opportunity to feature the priorities of the institution.  As part of our energy conservation effort research, we reviewed the home pages of each of the institutions we contacted to determine if sustainability or energy reduction were important enough to be included on the institution’s home page. LBL, Oklahoma, Maryland, and Michigan had sustainability or energy reduction imbedded in the navigation structure of their university’s home page. Moreover, Oklahoma and Michigan had two of the most comprehensive and successful occupant‐controlled energy reduction programs we reviewed.   

  

What is high level support?

At LBNL, the Lab Director funds lunch for 

all building occupants in the building with 

the highest energy reduction. 

Stanford’s energy reduction program was 

a mandate from the very top.  It wasn’t a 

choice that schools could participate.  It 

was made very clear to all of the deans 

that this was going to happen. 

Maryland’s pilot program was supported 

by the VP of Administrative Affairs.  The 

VP sent the communications requesting 

all department directors in the buildings 

to participate in the program. 

At Michigan, the President’s picture and 

statement are included on the program’s 

website.  The President also participated 

in a video explaining the program. 

At Oklahoma, the program is supported 

by the Regents through an adopted 

energy policy. 

The Chancellor at UCSD helped promote 

their program by taking the online pledge 

herself to conserve energy.   

At Yale, the President has required set 

points on thermostats for all buildings 

and facilities to help reduce energy use 

on campus.  In addition, four of the paid 

staff in the Office of Sustainability are 

paid with endowment funding. 

 

 

14

Rollout  

The most successful universities we researched had well‐staffed, well‐branded campaigns. Some universities hired energy liaisons to visit buildings and host open houses or energy reduction kick‐off parties. These open houses provided educational opportunities while creating a buzz and spreading the word through giveaways such as t‐shirts, hats, stickers, and coffee mugs with the universities program brand. Successful program rollouts also included a robust, program‐specific website. Most websites have information and tips on energy reduction for the universities’ different populations.   

 Another effective means of energy reduction outreach is the use of a pledge system, whereby 

building occupants read and sign an agreement that they will be part of the energy reduction solution. This pledge system has been successful at UCSD, Texas A&M, and Michigan. By signing pledges, the participants are afforded other benefits such as periodic energy‐consumption updates.  Funding and Resources   

The universities we researched reported varying costs associated with running their energy conservation programs.  Those that held competitions between campus buildings or residence halls reported minimal cost.  Universities with extensive campuswide energy education and conservation programs reported higher costs, but also had in place a system in which the energy savings from these programs would eventually pay for themselves over the long term (i.e., Texas A&M, Oklahoma, and Michigan).  At Texas A&M and Michigan, program costs included salaries for 6 to 8 full‐time employees. A few of the universities interviewed could not provide a definitive cost for running their programs given that they did not have a separate budget and/or staff for programs that were part of a larger department or unit.   

Funding for energy education and conservation programs varied greatly between the universities. Large private universities such as Stanford, Yale, and Harvard reported large funding allocations for their programs. Maryland reported outside funding sources, such as a small grant from the National Wildlife Federation Campus Ecology program, to pilot their energy reduction program.  Programs that were part of a larger department or unit did not have a separate budget and two of the programs reported a lack of funding due to recent budget cuts at their universities.   Incentives  

Most of universities that used financial incentives/disincentives as well as those that made technological and physical changes to their buildings reached a plateau in energy reduction just a few years after implementation.  Most realized that they needed to launch a social marketing campaign that targeted occupant‐controlled energy reduction to further reduce their energy consumption. To develop and implement successful energy reduction programs focusing on building occupant behavior change, different forms of incentives were used by the various universities.     

 

 

15

At some of the universities, competitions between campus buildings, departments, or residence halls were mentioned as a fun way to build awareness about energy conservation efforts on campus.  Rewards such as t‐shirts, water bottles, mugs, building kickoff parties, open houses, pizza parties, and ice cream socials were often used to motivate the participants in these programs. Yet, in discussing the use of such rewards as incentives, the Sustainability Analyst at UCSD noted that extrinsic rewards such as prizes seem to be effective in kick‐starting programs, but intrinsic rewards are needed for the long term if the program is to be successful. 

 At other universities, such as Yale, which launched a 

Sustainability Leaders program made up of staff volunteers who collaborate with the Office of Sustainability to create sustainable workplaces throughout campus, formal recognition was used as an incentive to recognize those individuals who are energy stewards on their campus. At UCSD and Michigan, the president or chancellor supported and made visible energy‐conservation efforts. This high level of support is another way for campuses to reach out and incentivize behavior change on campus.        

Most of the universities we contacted have a billing system in place to charge auxiliary units for energy use and a number of the universities, including Stanford, Harvard, and Michigan, and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory have rolled out billing for total energy consumption, or the variance above a baseline consumption amount, to all units.  Statements generated from the billing systems are used as a means to incentivize individuals to reduce their energy consumption. However, in the case of both Stanford and Michigan, this billing system was not used as effectively as possible because the information was not always shared with all building occupants.  At Oklahoma State, in addition to billing, energy conservation was the responsibility of building managers and was also used as a component of their yearly performance evaluations.    Resources  

When asked about the specific resources available to sustain their program such as staffing and, in particular, having an individual(s) in charge of marketing, the responses varied greatly. Institutions with well‐funded programs, such as Stanford and Michigan, have a large number of full‐time staff dedicated to running energy education and conservation programs. These schools also often have a designated individual or team assigned to oversee the outreach and marketing of their programs.  Michigan and Oklahoma even hired external marketing firms to help design their websites and brand their energy‐

Examples of 

incentive/disincentives: 

Maryland’s Energywi$e program 

distributed reports to building 

occupants on their energy use and 

rewarded those who turned off 

lights in their office by leaving 

notes and chocolates in their 

chairs. 

At UCLA and Oregon, 

competitions were held between 

the residence halls and ice cream 

socials, pizza parties and gift 

certificates were given out to the 

winners (see Appendix G2). 

Michigan’s Planet Blue campaign 

holds building kickoff open house 

and gives away t‐shirts and water 

bottles.  Interested individuals can 

also sign up to become a Planet 

Blue citizen on their website (see 

Appendix G2). 

Yale has four levels of green 

certifications with the goal for 

each office to earn Yale badges 

and plaques. 

Stanford established baseline 

energy usage for each building.  If 

individual buildings’ or units’ 

energy usage goes beyond their 

established baseline they are 

charged for the difference.  If 

usage went below the baseline 

the dean of the department is 

awarded the funds saved and can 

use the money however they 

Examples of 

incentive/disincentives: 

Maryland’s Energywi$e program 

distributed reports to building 

occupants on their energy use and 

rewarded those who turned off 

lights in their office by leaving 

notes and chocolates in their 

chairs. 

At UCLA and Oregon, 

competitions were held between 

the residence halls and ice cream 

socials, pizza parties and gift 

certificates were given out to the 

winners (see Appendix G2). 

Michigan’s Planet Blue campaign 

holds building kickoff open house 

and gives away t‐shirts and water 

bottles.  Interested individuals can 

also sign up to become a Planet 

Blue citizen on their website (see 

Appendix G2). 

Yale has four levels of green 

certifications with the goal for 

each office to earn Yale badges 

and plaques. 

Stanford established baseline 

energy usage for each building.  If 

individual buildings’ or units’ 

energy usage goes beyond their 

established baseline they are 

charged for the difference.  If 

usage went below the baseline 

the dean of the department is 

awarded the funds saved and can 

use the money however they 

would like.  

 

 

16

conservation campaigns.  Schools with less funding reported a very minimal number of full‐time staff whose job is dedicated to promoting their programs.  A few of the universities interviewed had only one full‐time staff member in charge of their energy conservation efforts.  At Oklahoma and Illinois, the building managers were also in charge of their energy‐conservation programs. Most schools used student interns or volunteers to assist in running the programs.    Goals and Accomplishments  

When asked how they measured the success/change impact of their program, most universities reported that success was measured by the overall reduction percentage of energy use in buildings included in the program. The baseline from which the reduction was calculated varied from university to university.  Some simply used the prior year usage as a comparison. Others used historical averages for several years or made adjustments for increases in building square footage, increases in the campus population or annual changes in the weather.   

Energy reduction percentages were often translated into dollars, kilowatt hours, or metric tons of carbon emissions, when reported to the campus communities.  Some universities even took it one step further and translated savings into units more tangible to occupants, such as, the number of cars taken off the road for a year.  

In addition to energy reduction percentages, other success measures reported included:  

whether program goals had been met; 

the percentage reduction in just electricity use; 

the number of people who took a pledge to conserve energy; 

a post program survey that indicated a number of building occupants were willing to change their behavior as a result of the program; 

the number of buildings that consistently used less energy than the baseline long after the program had ended; and  

buildings forming energy committees on their own.  

Challenges and Responses    Most of the universities reported some changes to their energy‐conservation and educational programs since inception. A few of the programs were launched as pilot programs and then gained greater support from the university community to become campuswide programs.  Growing interests in some of the programs also resulted in expansion of programs to accommodate more participants.  The growth in the Sustainability Leaders program at Yale led to increased funding for the program and the development of different tiers to accommodate participants’ varying level of 

Examples of success measures:

Harvard and Michigan achieved  

6‐7% overall energy reduction 

which met or exceeded program 

goals.   

Stanford achieved 3‐4% energy 

reduction as a result of their 

occupant‐controlled behavior 

change program.  

At Lawrence Berkeley National 

Laboratory, building energy 

committees forming independent 

of program coordination was seen 

as a success. 

Maryland saw reductions in 

electricity usage that ranged from 

0‐10% in three pilot program 

buildings.   

UCSD received pledges from 500 

students, faculty & staff to take 

action to conserve electricity. 

 

 

17

knowledge on energy conservation. Maryland reported that they were able to expand their educational program to other buildings on campus as a result of the enthusiastic environmental partners found across campus.  In contrast, programs at Illinois and Oregon lost momentum due to recent budget cuts. At Michigan, success has brought some challenges to those administering their initiative. Buildings that have been targeted have yielded significant energy savings and those who manage buildings that have not yet participated in the energy reduction initiative have expressed disappointment that the program has not been rolled out across all campus buildings.   Lessons learned    When asked about lessons learned from their programs, most universities reported communication as the key to the success of any education campaign targeting faculty, students, and staff. In particular, universities advised using specific tools to target different audiences to deliver messages.  Oregon, Yale, UCSD, and UCLA utilized social media tools such as Twitter and Facebook to get their message across to students and relied on more traditional communication methods such as newsletters and emails to target faculty and staff.      Our peers at other universities emphasized that both high‐level and grassroots support and involvement was necessary for the successful implementation of any program.  As noted in the case of Michigan and their Planet Blue campaign, it is important to garner visible support from deans and chairs but also to include on the team the occupants who have the highest influence within the building. Furthermore, as noted by the Sustainability Analyst at UCSD, collaboration is key to the success of these programs and drives the participation from administration, faculty, staff, and students.  Accountability    There was limited reporting on the mechanism in place to hold people accountable for energy reduction.  Universities such as Stanford and Harvard that have an energy billing system in place did report using billing statements as an effective means to raise awareness about energy consumption.  However, this was not the case for most of the other universities that did not have such a billing system in place.   For programs such as “Power Down for the Planet” at UCSD, where success is measured by the number of people who take the pledge toward use of computer power management tools and turn off their computer at the end of each day, it was noted that it was hard to gauge if these commitments were actually put into practice after the pledges were signed since there were no follow up mechanisms in place to ensure that such commitments are followed through.   Conclusion 

 Our research found that the most successful occupant‐controlled energy reduction programs 

are supported and/or mandated from the administration. They also have a grassroots level of support from students, faculty and staff.  In most cases, these programs are part of the university’s strategic plans and are backed by funding and resources, such as full time employees dedicated solely to supporting the work and goals of the programs. The most successful programs are not stand‐alone occupant‐controlled energy reduction programs, but are integrated with infrastructure improvement efforts and are made highly visible through well‐coordinated marketing campaigns and, in most cases, have included some form of incentives in its implementation.  All universities reported communication as key to the successful implementation of any occupant‐controlled energy reduction campaign. 

 

 

 

18

AN INTERNAL CASE STUDY: STANLEY HALL 

  A Case Study in Progress  

One of the newest buildings on campus, Stanley Hall, opened in 2007 with ambitious goals. State of the art technology, both for research and teaching, and an interdisciplinary environment that encourages collaboration among researchers was paramount to its design. As the largest research building on campus, Stanley Hall has eleven floors and houses more than 40 research labs, along with auditoriums and classrooms. What makes Stanley extraordinary as a research center also presents extraordinary challenges in terms of energy conservation. With multiple disciplines represented in a single building, there is no clear‐cut administrative leadership — no dean or chair who oversees the majority of researchers. With such varied research, each lab has its own set of unique needs and energy demands, making it necessary to customize reduction efforts — a labor‐intensive endeavor.  

The energy reduction project was initially launched with funds from Patrick MacArdle’s SEP granting program. Working closely with Capital Projects, new building manager Stewart Brown collected information to create an energy‐usage baseline for Stanley Hall. He was also able to hire a student intern to handle some of the other aspects of the project, including research, marketing, and communication.  

The student researcher conducted a survey of occupants (100 responses out of approximately 750 occupants). Forty five percent of respondents indicated that they were “very interested” in energy efficiency and sustainability (52% were “somewhat interested”).  Most acknowledged that they did small things to cut down on energy use — such as turning out lights or powering down their computers at the end of the day — but 78% thought they only had “adequate” ability to control light levels in their workspace (as opposed to 17% whose ability was “excellent” and 5% who stated it was “poor”).  

Climate control was a big issue among respondents (and one that the building manager acknowledged was an engineering challenge), with the building too warm in the morning and too cold in the afternoon.  Approximately half the respondents felt that they could tolerate fluctuations in temperature if they knew energy was being conserved.  

One of the biggest issues that surfaced in the survey was around involvement. Although respondents were happy to offer suggestions for improvement, when asked directly if they would be willing to be a part of a “Stanley Efficiency Team” that would help with peer outreach, 59% said no, 35% said maybe, depending on responsibilities, and only 5% said yes. When asked if they would be interested if a Green Lab Certification program was launched, 63% responded “maybe, if it was easy,” and 32% said yes.  The survey would seem to state that Stanley Hall occupants are concerned about energy usage, and open to change — as long as it does not require too much effort from them personally.   

The test phase for the Stanley Hall energy project was launched on July 31, 2010, and will run through the end of October, when baseline levels will be re‐examined to see if significant reduction has occurred. Brown is pursuing the technology pieces with the team at Energy Management Systems of Physical Plant, trying to determine which lab equipment can be turned down or creating a schedule for complete shutoff during certain hours. He told our team that faculty, for the most part, have been indifferent to his staff’s efforts to reduce energy use; they are focused so intently on their own research. The student intern worked on a marketing plan to launch alongside the technical efforts — sending out emails, creating fliers and posters to display around the building. Unfortunately a change in 

 

 

19

circumstances required that this hardworking student move out of state; Brown has not been able to replace her yet and is concerned that marketing efforts will fall through the cracks because he does not have staff or time to do this additional work.  

Brown expressed concern about the success of this test phase. The lab layout in Stanley Hall is complex and the needs are so different that he was not confident that “turning down” any electricity‐burning equipment would be feasible. And he felt that marketing efforts needed to be much more visible. In order to get on the radar screen of very busy researchers, he felt a seminar or webinar announcing the launch in the building, followed by constant communication would offer a much greater chance at success. He hoped that in the future there might be funds for intern support, as well as full‐time staff that could focus on these efforts around campus. 

  

         

                       

 

 

20

AN EXTERNAL CASE STUDY: UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 

  The following case study examines the approach taken by the University of Michigan (UM) to 

increase engagement levels in energy‐conservation efforts. The efforts at UM were selected for this case study as UM is a large public university with a comprehensive and effective energy awareness program.  Overview of the University of Michigan   

The University of Michigan and UC Berkeley are both large public research universities, highly regarded for both their undergraduate and graduate programs.  They also share the predicament of reduced and declining support from their respective states.  The state of Michigan contributes only 6% of UM’s budget while California provides 22% of Berkeley’s budget.  Both institutions have a highly decentralized governance structure with faculty playing a central role in most significant decisions made at the campus. UM has 427 buildings totaling over 31 million square feet of building space on over 3,000 acres of land. UC Berkeley has 110 buildings on campus and 16.2 million gross square feet of building space on 1,232 acres of land.  University of Michigan and Energy Conservation  

UM has a long‐standing commitment to energy conservation. Since the inception of its energy conservation effort in 1973, UM has been working to improve the energy efficiency of its buildings through engineering modifications as well as educational outreach efforts. In 2003, President Mary Sue Coleman established an Environmental Task Force to “develop a plan for the University of Michigan to create a more sustainable future.”  

Realizing that their initial educational outreach efforts were not achieving the desired results and that energy conservation efforts require more than just engineering changes, members of the University of Michigan Utilities Reduction Committee, in conjunction with central administrators and facility managers, commissioned the Institute for Social Research (ISR) at UM. ISR was launched to design and implement a study aimed at understanding the behavioral aspects of energy conservation and sustainability. The study began in March 2006 with a report of findings and recommendations released in the spring of 2007 (see Appendix F).  

The goal of the study was to determine the extent to which faculty, staff and students in UM buildings are different in their behaviors and thoughts. The intent of the study was to provide policy makers with new information that would allow them to assess the impacts of past policies and the potential impact of future policy options as well as to determine how to best engender energy reduction behaviors among members of the university community. The study developed and tested methods and procedures for identifying:  

What people thought about Energy Conservation (EC);  What people were already doing at work;  What they believed about the University’s commitment to EC ;  What they were willing to do. 

   

 

 

21

Plan of Attack  

In the spring of 2007, UM introduced a six‐point Environmental and Energy Initiative (EEI) designed to focus and increase environmental stewardship and energy conservation efforts where the most gains could be made to make the campus more sustainable in the context of rising energy costs, an increased awareness regarding climate change, and declining resources. The six elements of the EEI are:  

1. Annual Environmental Report 2. Renewable Energy 3. Alternative Transportation 4. Green Purchasing 5. New Construction/ Renovation Projects 6. Planet Blue 

 This case study focuses on the implementation of the sixth element: Planet Blue. Planet Blue is 

the behavior change program of EEI scheduled to be rolled out in phases over three years to engage building occupants in energy efficiency and environmental awareness. The program was initiated in 2007 and took a full school year to develop. It was rolled out as a pilot in five buildings housing administrative, lab and academic departments. Following this pilot phase, it was then rolled out in 2009 to a total of 30 buildings across campus.  

There are eight full‐time Planet Blue employees who are organized into three teams that include facility managers, plant operations personnel, and unit/building representatives. Each team covers 10 buildings per year.  The plan is to address 30 buildings a year for three years. The teams spend approximately three months working on a building and maintain some level of visibility thereafter, as a reminder for building occupants to conserve.  The Planet Blue teams use the following approach on each building:   

Assess the building.  Review consumption data, determine who the building occupants are and the types of energy consuming activities in the building, what equipment is used in the building, and what energy conservation projects have been completed or are underway.  

Form a building team. These teams include: facility managers, IT, maintenance and custodial, and energy zealots in the building (including staff and faculty with influence in the building).  Generally each team has 8 to 10 people. These individuals participate in meetings, help with building kickoff and act as building community liaisons. 

 

Educate leadership. Team attends leadership meeting for department or school asking for support and educates them on the Planet Blue program. Team conveys to leadership team that they expect to be active in the building for a couple of months. 

 

Host building kickoff/open house event. Planet Blue building team sets up booths on various aspects of building conservation, provides lunch, materials on projects currently under consideration, tools occupants can use, conservation tips, and more. T‐shirts and water bottles are offered to guests as giveaways. Attendees register to be “Planet Blue Citizens” and commit to conserve energy. Each month, Planet Blue citizens receive an email alerting them of tasks they can perform to conserve energy. They can keep score of their 

 

 

22

ongoing progress and can communicate with others in their building on the “My Planet Blue” website. 

 UM hired an external marketing firm to design and brand the Planet Blue website, t‐shirts, 

posters, and other Planet Blue marketing materials. The Planet Blue website includes visible support from the UM President, a scrolling list of Planet Blue citizens, access to the site that displays electronic energy consumption dashboards by building, news, events and resources (including energy saving tips).  Results   

The Planet Blue initiative has an energy reduction goal of 5 percent.  This includes total reduction of both steam and electrical usage from all reduction efforts, not just the behavior change effort.  In the five pilot buildings in 2008, overall energy usage was reduced by 6% equating to $340,000 in cost savings.  In 2009, overall energy usage was reduced by 11% (of note is that electrical usage actually increased by 4%; steam decreased by 15%) equating to $481,000 in cost savings. In 2009, for all 30 buildings encompassed by the initiative, overall energy usage was reduced by 8% equating to $1.483 million in cost savings.  Electrical usage was reduced by 5% (see Appendix D).   Success Factors  

We believe that the president’s highly visible support for the program and the phased rollout of a campaign with clear and frequent communication with memorable slogans contributed to the success of UM’s Planet Blue program. Mary Sue Coleman, the President of UM, is featured in an introductory video and is prominently featured on the Planet Blue website clearly demonstrating the program as a priority for her campus.   

 The motto used by Planet Blue —  “save energy, save money, save the planet” — clearly 

identifies the immediate need (to save money) and also issues a higher calling (to save the planet).  Slogans on the Planet Blue banners and other marketing materials make the connection between the individual and a higher calling: “I live on Planet Blue,” “It all starts here and it all starts with you,” “First this building, next the world,” “Hail to conserving heroes,” “It’s time for a change,” and “It is time to become a Planet Blue Citizen.” A phased rollout, starting with a pilot phase that included five diverse campus buildings, helped build momentum by creating a positive buzz and demonstrating the effectiveness of the initiative. It also provided the team with valuable data for the next phase of the project. This was a building‐to‐building campaign, with a clear path to success. UM recognized the energy saving efforts (technical, engineering, and mechanical changes) from existing initiatives and included them in the communication to the campus community.  Improving the existing infrastructure to support the energy reduction program also helped immensely. The use of effective social marketing was essential to Planet Blue’s success.  

 

     

 

 

 

23

UTILIZING SOCIAL MARKETING AND BEHAVIOR CHANGE THEORY 

  Introduction  

Social marketing is conventionally defined as the use of commercial marketing strategies to sell social goods, influence behavior, and promote social change to the benefit of individuals and larger society.  As a behavior change strategy, social marketing is used to sell a variety of social goods, including sustainability and energy conservation behaviors (see Appendix H). Behavior change, especially around energy conservation, is challenging: people are uncontrollable and unpredictable. Energy conservation is perceived as nebulous and outside the control of a single person. Cal presents additional challenges given that some research labs are inherently energy intensive.  Sustainable practices are therefore not always a priority.  

Our research of social marketing best practices revealed the need for analysis of the targeted audiences prior to the launch of a campaign; developing targeted communication plans and marketing strategies for those audiences; and utilizing integrated, social media tools that accelerate the adoption of socially beneficial behaviors. Additionally, we identified existing social marketing campaigns and social media uses on the Berkeley campus, which provide implications for the development and implementation of a comprehensive, campuswide electricity conservation and sustainability program.  

 Sustainability in the form of energy conservation is often perceived as being outside the locus of 

control of individuals, and communicating ways that an individual’s behavior can contribute to broad sustainability efforts is important. Individual behavior change must be linked to larger societal goals to ensure that people are involved in, and aware of, the difference their behavior can make. People are motivated by social responsibility, so the social responsibility element of energy conservation behaviors must be emphasized, and specific ways that people can contribute to reaching a broader social goal so that their motivation and involvement are sustained.  Analyzing the audience  

Reducing campus electricity use through behavior modification begins with an analysis of how the audiences you wish to target are thinking, feeling, and acting on the issue of energy reduction. As we have mentioned earlier in this report, the first step to an effective campaign is to understand the relevant audiences on campus and identifying the barriers (and the triggers) to motivating behavior change around electricity use. This type of market analysis provides critical information on the target audience — demographics, variability, and preferences — which could be used to develop targeted informative messages that can be combined with relevant incentives that motivate behavior change. In the case of the Berkeley campus, this would include an analysis of the primary segments — faculty, staff and students — and development of customized and targeted messages about electricity reduction behaviors. The message should also be segmented based on the buildings being targeted. For example, a poster campaign that is customized with specific information about a building will have a stronger impact than generic posters that appeal to building occupants to conserve energy. Tying the message to the particular location will increase the likelihood that the message will resonate and with the target audience.   

 

 

24

 Developing the Message  

 In his book "Start with Why," Simon Senek introduces the "Golden Circle" to illustrate a pattern 

that exists among organizations and individuals that are able to communicate effectively and inspire change. Simon's contention is that they all "Start with Why."  

What: this is the goal of every organization. 

How: this is the process by which the organization is trying to achieve the "what." 

Why: this is the higher purpose that is driving the goal.  

Most organizations start by communicating the "what," as this is clearly defined in most cases, but people will believe in the "what" (goal) if you tell them the "why" (purpose).  Starting with communicating the purpose creates the proverbial "compelling vision" and gives people a reason to believe in the goal and process to achieve that goal.  

Both the content and form of any campaign effort at Berkeley must resonate with each audience, and simultaneously reflect the desired larger social change, as well as the individual’s specific circumstances. The communication messages used to promote sustainable electricity conservation behavior change at Berkeley should be clear, compelling, imaginative, and balanced:3  

Clear: Messages must be clear, direct, and integrated with other behavior change requests. Communicate along with broader sustainability behaviors, and provide specific examples of how people can reduce their electricity use.   

 Compelling: Communicating losses is often more compelling than communicating gains, and communicating the benefits of electricity conservation should first include a powerful message about the costs of not engaging in that behavior. For example, describing what the University loses each year (financially and socially) due to energy inefficiencies can serve as a lead for describing the benefits conferred to the University. This requires a cost‐benefits analysis and making that data easily accessible. 

 Imaginative: Empathy and imagination are powerful tools, and effective messages use empathy as a motivator for change. Because people are more inclined to empathize with people (not environments or institutions), the communication messages should underscore how people — students, staff, faculty, and community members — are impacted by energy inefficiencies. For example, energy expenditures reduce the funds that would otherwise be used to further the core teaching, research and public service mission of the University.  Communicating the losses that result from non‐sustainable behaviors — when done imaginatively — can evoke a strong degree of empathy (for students and faculty), which in turn can serve to motivate the adoption of electricity conservation behaviors. 

 Balanced: Language used to describe the sustainability challenge is often hyperbolic and negates reasonable, realistic solutions, which are often described in small ways by comparison.  

                                                            3 Futerra Sustainability Communications. “New Rules, New Games: Communications Tactics for Climate Change.”  

 

 

25

Solutions must sound heroic, and capable of achieving the desired outcome of significantly reducing energy consumption. This requires striking a balance between the language used to describe the problem and solution and normalizing the desired behaviors while obscuring the undesirable. With regards to electricity conservation, this includes emphasizing positive social norms and the fact most campus community members want to (and already are) engaged in some energy reduction behaviors and sustainability efforts.  

 Any energy reduction campaign must incorporate feedback and direct communication with 

those who have engaged in the desired behavior change. Providing people with data regarding how they can or have contributed in meaningful ways will eliminate doubt that individuals can significantly impact energy consumption. This will help to promote sustained behavior change.   

 Don’t Shoot the Messenger  

 The message source — person, group or organization from whom a message is perceived to 

have come — has influence over the credibility, clarity, and relevance of a message, and therefore affects how the message is perceived.4 As we have seen at the University of Michigan, as they identified each building in their rollout plan, they also identified occupants within the building that they felt could positively influence change.  We have also seen at Berkeley that having the message come from the top — for example, at Wurster Hall, the message came from Dean Jennifer Wolch — is an effective way of identifying the importance of the message. 

 Audience members with highly developed leadership abilities and influence serve as important 

leaders of change and communication messengers. Effective communication often requires multiple messengers, whose roles, while not equal, are both of importance. Technical experts and social influence messengers are both important, and the charisma and influence that comes with “common‐sense” messengers should be prioritized as these messengers often possess a higher degree of social influence.5  With regards to OE, this relates to change leaders (those who have the authority or social influence to drive change) and change agents (those who facilitate the change).  Both change leaders and change agents communicate important messages to promote the adoption of energy conservation behaviors and hold people accountable to maintain personal and meaningful commitments to broader sustainability goals. 

 Choose the Right Communication Methods – and Repeat!  

Various strategies can be adopted to promote electricity conservation in a manner that resonates with the target audience. While developing the right language for a targeted message is important, combining the message with a compelling image will maximize desired outcomes. Research shows that people are often motivated by compelling images. Images associated with electricity reduction, energy conservation, and sustainability may help to resonate with and capture a larger audience.   

 Frequent exposure to messages and images provides cues to action and reminds people of the 

benefits of adopting electricity reduction behaviors. These reminders must be clear, specific, and 

                                                            4 Nutbeam, Don; Elizabeth Harris and Marilyn Wise. Theory in a Nutshell. New York: McGraw Hill, 2004. 5 Futerra Sustainability Communications. “New Rules, New Games: Communications Tactics for Climate Change.”  

 

 

26

frequent to promote and maintain the desired behavior change. Finally, communication methods that provide opportunities to try out a new behavior in a safe, conducive environment are highly effective.  For example, instituting a competition that allows people to recall energy conservation practices enables important communication messages to be delivered and knowledge of sustainable practices to be demonstrated.6    

Engaging participants in multiple, easy and fun demonstration opportunities enables the communication message to permeate the audience and promote participation.  The UC Berkeley I Heart Tap Water campaign — a collaboration between UHS, Cal Dining and Cal Recreational Sports — promoted the selection of tap water as the preferred beverage on campus by providing campus community members the opportunity to (see Figure I):  

Take a pledge and join the campaign; 

Post and share favorite tap water hydration locations; 

Volunteer for tap water promotion events; and 

Develop their own tap water promotion activities.  

Participants learned of these opportunities through a 

series of messages widely disseminated via the campaign's 

website, social network sites and email ‐ social media. Social media are viable tools for providing an 

audience with multiple engaging opportunities to be involved with a campaign, and should be utilized to 

reduce occupant‐controlled electricity consumption. Social media is the term used to describe online 

media that facilitates conversation, collaboration and networking between users, in addition to 

providing information content, which is also the function of 

more traditional forms of media.  Social media should be 

used strategically as part of an integrated communications 

strategy.  This requires building a media network using a 

combination of tools to create a cohesive strategy with the 

message at its core (see Figure II).   Examples of frequently 

used social media tools include: 

 

Website: sustainable.berkeley.edu 

Collaboration Tools: Wiki 

Media Sharing: Youtube 

Social Network: Facebook 

Blog: Wordpress 

Micro‐blog: Twitter 

                                                            6 Khan, Omar and John Canny. “Promoting Environmentally  Sustainable Behaviors Using Social Marketing in Emerging  Persuasive Technologies.” Berkeley Institute of Design, Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley, 2009. 

Figure I

Figure II

University Health Services, uhs.berkeley.edu/tapwater 

 

 

27

 

Social media’s popularity is partially attributed to users’ ability to develop and share content 

quickly and widely, and we believe that it can be effectively used to reduce occupant‐controlled 

electricity on the Berkeley campus.  

 Engaging the audience ‐ and deciding where, when and with whom to engage is important. The 

fact that over 60% of American adults and up to 90% of college students belong to a social network7 suggests that strategic use of a few social media tools will broaden any campaign’s reach. When working with social networks, one model to consider is commonly referred to as “tiers of engagement.”8 

 Building support through tiers of engagement means people can be involved based on their 

interests and engagement levels. Engaging those who are most committed first provides an opportunity to leverage their commitment to garner additional support. For example, when respondents to the Stanley Hall survey were asked if they would be willing to be a part of a "Stanley Efficiency Team" to help with peer outreach, 59% said no; 35% said maybe, depending on responsibilities, and only 5% said yes. In this instance, there is clearly a need to create tiers for participation that appeal to different levels of interest. Participants that enter the "ladder" at the first tier will gradually develop more interest in the program and graduate to the next tier, turning into influencers who recruit other building occupants to participate.  

As we move up the “tiers,” the number of people decreases as there is an increase in the level of commitment required. However, while the number of people participating decreases, the value resulting from that participation increases (see Figure III). It also gives an individual the option to start at the personal level and move up the ladder, as interest level rises and the individual learns more about the subject. Planning, maintaining and evaluating social media use facilitates a continual improvement of engagement activities, and having a primary administrator of social media tools helps to promote 

                                                            7 Pempek, T, Yevdokiya, Y, Calvert, S. "College Students' Social Networking Experiences on Facebook." 8 Monte, Lutz. "The Social Pulpit: Barack Obama's Social Media Toolkit."  

Adapted from Edelman.com 

Figure III

 

 

28

coordination, continuity, integration and maintenance. Start slow, first by establishing a presence, then gather feedback, and then incrementally scale the operation, by enriching content and engaging a community of influencers.  Incrementally scaling the operation provides the opportunity to incorporate community feedback (see Figure IV). The community must feel that they are driving some aspects of the initiative for it to succeed.  Incorporating feedback creates a sense of ownership and empowers individuals to become strong advocates.    

 

   Social Marketing on the UC Berkeley Campus  

Our review of behavior change theories, and effective social marketing strategies, suggests that a comprehensive, campuswide electricity reduction campaign should reflect best practices in the field and the unique characteristics of the Berkeley campus — its culture, people and environment.  The heightened sense of social responsibility, and sophisticated understanding of social responsibility and sustainability issues which characterize the Berkeley campus, necessitate well‐tailored and strategically delivered communication messages.   

 Moreover, the coordinated and strategic dissemination of these messages must reconcile the 

University’s shared governance model and decentralized‐nature, which are both non‐conducive to coordinated communication efforts. However, our research uncovered examples of effective social marketing campaigns, suggesting that there is a receptive population on campus that would engage in a comprehensive electricity reduction and sustainability campaign.    

         

 

Source: Edelman.com

Figure IV 

 

 

29

RECOMMENDATIONS 

  

Based on an assessment of the current campus energy reduction efforts, reviewing and analyzing initiatives and best practices at peer institutions, and researching social marketing and behavior change theory, we recommend an occupant‐controlled reduction initiative that includes:  

1. Launching a pilot program in 3 to 5 buildings 2. Operationalizing guidelines and institutionalizing policies  3. Establishing one program office with dedicated staff 

 To reduce occupant‐controlled electricity use at UC Berkeley, we propose that a program office 

with dedicated staff be responsible for launching an energy reduction awareness initiative. The office 

will be charged with operationalizing existing guidelines and institutionalizing policies that have already 

been adopted (but not internalized) by the campus by collecting data and assessing outcomes after the 

rollout of a pilot program.  We believe that these recommendations will create a campus climate where 

energy awareness and conservation become a social norm. This effort, combined with energy efficiency 

upgrades, will help position the campus to realize the $3–4 million in cost savings identified in the 

energy management section of the OE diagnostic report.  

Recommendation 1: Launch Pilot Program in 3 to 5 buildings   Implementation  

Based on our assessment of best practices at other institutions, we recommend that one appropriately resourced central office design, manage, and implement a pilot, phased rollout of a building‐by‐building energy reduction awareness initiative to reduce occupant‐controlled electricity use. We recommend that the program office “bring the message to the people” by hosting events in buildings with the goal of raising awareness and reducing energy use.  The initiative should first target 3 to 5 campus buildings and should include:  

a mix of buildings that are representative of the larger campus (i.e., mixed use, classroom, labs, and administration);  

buildings that are part of the Strategic Energy Plan, if possible; 

buildings whose occupants have a high readiness for change; 

buildings with meters already installed so that immediate feedback can be provided to occupants on building performance. 

 We recommend that the initiative begin with an assessment of the building that includes 

reviewing historical usage, surveying occupants to understand concerns and specific issues around electricity use and to identify potential change‐leaders in a building, and reviewing pending and past infrastructure projects to be able to inform occupants of progress and let them know which projects may be coming next to their building (see Figure V). Any work that has already been done in this area for SEP or by sustainability groups should be capitalized on. Information from this assessment should be used to develop building communications and marketing materials and to set building specific energy reduction targets. 

 

 

30

   We recommend that the Chancellor deliver a message to leaders in the pilot buildings announcing the initiative, requesting their support, and encouraging their staff’s participation. The Chancellor’s role should be highly visible in each building and across the campus in the form of a short video introduction on the initiative website.   

Human Resource Development  

The successful implementation of an energy reduction pilot program necessitates the mobilization of human resources — the ideas, energy, and expertise of staff and team members. We recommend — in addition to recruiting and selecting dedicated staff — that the existing personnel resources within buildings be leveraged to meet the program’s goals and a network of resources be developed to collaborate between buildings. For example, developing a “community of practice” among building managers already charged with important facilities and energy management responsibilities, enables their experience and ingenuity to be shared across buildings for the benefit of the entire campus. We envision this “community of practice” to be a communications network of building managers who informally share information, resources, and best practices via monthly meetings and a Calshare collaboration site. The network, and information shared among network members, can play an important role in sustaining reduced electricity use after the pilot program by providing resources and motivation for building occupants to maintain their electricity conservation behaviors. 

 Ongoing Assessment and Evaluation  

The pilot phase should be used to assess occupant‐controlled electricity behaviors, attitudes, knowledge and baseline electricity use in the targeted buildings. Data from the assessments should be utilized to develop building‐specific occupant controlled electricity reduction goals, objectives, strategies and actions. Successful efforts should be re‐used and adapted. Upon completion of the pilot phase, the 

Figure V 

 

 

31

initiative should eventually be rolled out to metered buildings with high energy use. To create a buzz for the initiative, we recommend that the rollout occur in multiple buildings simultaneously. If billing is implemented as an incentive to reduce energy use, billing data should be made widely available to all building occupants.    Marketing Campaign  

The initiative must be “branded” so that the effort is visible and recognizable across campus. We recommend an outside marketing firm develop a distinct brand for the campaign and create material that can then be disseminated and managed internally. The campaign must emphasize both the social good of helping the environment and the financial aspects of saving money and “giving” back to departments. The messaging must emphasize the ease of participation and can be presented as a simple statement or choice. The campaign should incorporate highly recognizable names across campus such as Nobel Laureates and other opinion leaders. The campaign should include elements that are fun and appeal to the student body.       We recommend that a website be developed for the initiative as a gateway to obtain information and other materials related to the campaign. To show the high level of commitment the University has toward sustainability, we suggest the berkeley.edu home page include a link to the initiative website or that sustainability be added to Berkeley’s homepage in some form. The Chancellor’s support should be highly visible in each building and across the campus in the form of a short video introduction on the initiative website.  

The initiative should be launched with a high visibility event located in the lobby or just outside the entrance of the building and should include inviting displays and engaging volunteers who explain current and historical energy‐usage levels and what energy saving efforts are currently underway or planned to be undertaken (e.g., SEP projects, student sustainability initiatives, other occupant‐run energy conservation projects) in the building. The event should include displays and “take‐aways” with conservation tips, tools to measure or access data on energy consumption, and myth‐buster fact sheets so occupants understand how they can personally contribute to the conservation efforts in their building.   

We found that pledges to commit to conserve have been used with some success by other groups on campus and recommend that an opportunity to make a pledge be provided at the launch event. To incentivize participation in this pledge, a give‐away that incorporates the initiative brand could be used to further promote the initiative within the building.    Marketing collateral and communications should be tested and assessed during the pilot phase. Large and highly visible marketing pieces should be designed to be easily re‐used in other buildings.  Communications and smaller marketing pieces should be designed to be easily tailored to a particular building. It is important to weave personal stories into the marketing collateral. Successes from one building should be used as marketing collateral for another building.   Feedback Process  

Building occupants need a visible means to understand how the building is performing in relation to its energy reduction target. If dashboards are installed, an easily understood indicator should be used on the dashboard so that building occupants can quickly determine whether the building is 

 

 

32

reaching reduction targets. For example, Dartmouth College effectively used the picture of a polar bear in various stages of breaking through the ice in residence halls to indicate building performance. In the absence of electronic dashboards, paper dashboards can be posted in high traffic visible locations or communicated to building occupants through building leadership for the duration of the pilot phase.  For an example of such a dashboard, see the simple dashboard used by Maryland that includes a happy smiley face (green) versus a frowning face (red) on paper dashboards to indicate performance (see Appendix G1).  Marketing and informational material should target building occupants and highlight the innovative research by Berkeley faculty.  Personal stories can make marketing collateral more effective. 

  Incentives for Staff, Faculty and Students 

 

Both social and financial benefits should be used together as part of the occupant‐controlled electricity reduction marketing campaign to incentivize participation. The fact that energy management is the only OE initiative that has the potential to give back to departments, and help the planet, underscores the opportunity to emphasize both social responsibility and financial rewards as important incentives. Our research suggests that market segmentation is necessary to identify appropriate incentives for each primary campus constituent group: faculty, staff and students. Recognizing that different campus segments are motivated by a different set of incentives is central to creating and communicating an occupant‐controlled electricity reduction campaign that works. The campaign should reflect the unique campus culture and attributes of our campus community members. For example, the Berkeley student population is highly self‐organized around social causes, staff can be motivated by the opportunity to participate in a campuswide improvement endeavor, and the faculty can be engaged by the opportunity to give back to Berkeley.  

We recommend that an assessment of the campus population — in particular, building occupants according to staff, faculty and student segments— be conducted to determine primary needs and motivation factors as they relate to reducing occupant‐controlled electricity. This data can be collected during the pilot phase of the marketing campaign, and be used to develop appropriately targeted incentives. We further recommend that non‐financial incentives be prioritized as our research indicates that financial incentives are ineffective in promoting sustained behavior change at an individual level. Billing as a financial incentive has greater utility among department leaders and financial managers who maintain access to and authority over important financial and budget decisions. While billing for electricity use above baseline levels has been utilized as a disincentive and remunerating departments for electricity use below baseline as a financial incentive, we recommend that the following incentives be considered as part of a Berkeley occupant‐controlled electricity marketing campaign:  

Students 

Competition (between students and buildings) 

Rewards (academic units, food, promotional goods) 

Recognition (public and highly visible) 

Learning and training opportunities  Staff 

Green mentor status 

Participation in certification program 

High‐level, campuswide recognition 

 

 

33

Stewardship spot award (financial component) 

Learning and training opportunities 

Rewards (food, promotional goods) 

Networking and community building opportunities 

Performance evaluations  

Faculty 

Rewards (food, promotional goods) 

High‐level, campuswide recognition 

Stewardship spot award (financial component) 

Social responsibility (opportunity to give back to campus)  

Leadership 

High‐level, campuswide recognition 

Stewardship spot award (financial component) 

Financial incentives (billing)  Recommendation 2: Operationalize Guidelines and Institutionalize Policies  

UC Berkeley adopted The University of California Policy on Sustainable Practices and Guidelines and also produced the 2009 Campus Sustainability Plan. We recommend that this plan be operationalized and expanded to include building‐specific goals and objectives, department‐specific electricity reduction strategies, and institutionalized evaluation of electricity reduction improvements across the campus. The ultimate goal is to arm individual building occupants with information that will enable them to reduce energy consumption. We believe that lighting efficiency, building temperature control and green purchasing represent the most frequent occupant‐controlled electricity usage areas that must be addressed in guidelines for the campus.   

We recommend that the guidelines include goals and objectives that are specific, measurable, realistic, and that a timeline be incorporated. Electricity reduction goals and objectives should specify the scope (e.g. temperature and lighting control), applicability (e.g. faculty, staff, and students), and success metrics (e.g. demonstrated electricity use reduced below baseline). We recommend that both quantitative and qualitative metrics be established to measure the extent to which individual buildings and departments meet specified electricity reduction goals. Possible metrics and milestones include:  

Metrics 

An increase in building occupants’ awareness of electricity reducing behaviors  

An increase in the percentage of occupants demonstrating a readiness to engage in electricity conservation behaviors 

Desired percentage reduction in building occupants’ electricity use   

Milestones 

Consistent electricity use below baseline levels post implementation of the electricity reduction initiative 

Number of building occupants who participate in the electricity reduction initiative and commit to reducing their electricity use 

 

 

34

Formation of committees charged with sustaining electricity reduction behaviors in their building and among their fellow occupants  

 We recommend the data from the electricity reduction initiative be used to customize building‐

specific goals, objectives, strategies and actions. These building‐specific electricity strategies should be developed in consultation with building managers, department managers, and other key change leaders who are identified during assessment within the building, and reconciled with the energy needs of the building occupants. Our research of energy reduction programs and activities on the Berkeley campus and at other institutions suggests that the following strategies can be adapted and utilized to reduce electricity use:    

Lighting efficiency 

Developing occupancy schedules  

Reducing/modifying hours of operation 

Improving lighting systems   

Building temperature 

Recommending optimal temperatures 

Setting limits heating and cooling temperature  

Regulating use of personal heating/cooling systems 

Establishing protocols for adjusting temperature  

Green purchasing 

ENERGY‐STAR rated and EPEAT certified green electronic equipment purchasing standards 

Promoting purchase of recyclable, compostable and biodegradable products  

Regulating use of prohibited and discouraged equipment  

Building‐specific strategies can be used to recommend action items that faculty, staff and students can engage in, and also be easy, simple, and engaging. Finally, we recommend that completed actions on the part of staff, faculty, and students be recognized and rewarded when possible. In addition to performance evaluations, we recommend that building and department audits and annual reporting of electricity reduction metrics be strategically used as accountability measures to ensure that electricity reduction strategies are being implemented and goals are being met. 

 Recommendation 3: Establish one program office with dedicated staff   

In collaboration with Facilities Services, the program office would be responsible for identifying the buildings to participate in the pilot program, developing building specific objectives and metrics, and creating and implementing a campus energy reduction policy informed by a pilot of the initiative. The office would house the initiative’s communications and marketing effort and must be led by a Chief Energy Officer with the influence and authority to champion the initiative, support corresponding campaigns, and hold departments accountable to meet agreed upon goals and objectives.   Dedicated Staff  

The Chief Energy Officer would maintain primary responsibility for the monitoring, control and evaluation of the campus electricity reduction initiative, and be staffed by a marketing and 

 

 

35

communications specialist and two team leads (see Appendix I). The team leads would work to coordinate efforts in targeted buildings.  Working with the Energy Officer, the team lead would solicit support from leadership in the building to form a building team. Ideally the building team would include: the building manager, a representative from research (if target is a research building), a representative from IT, student representatives from sustainability groups that have done work in the building, facilities services personnel and other individuals passionate about energy conservation and who can act as change leaders in the building. This team will have three objectives: 1. inform building occupants of all energy reduction efforts going on in their building, 2. make clear to occupants what they can do to contribute to these efforts, and 3. collect information to inform the development of energy policy guidelines.     

The marketing and communications specialist would work with the building teams to package and communicate the “behind the scenes” (mechanical, technological, structural, etc.) improvements with the occupant‐controlled efforts. Combining these efforts into the central message or brand will make individual members of the campus community feel part of a larger effort that benefits the campus and the planet. As we reported in our research regarding social marketing and behavior change, this type of motivation has been shown to effectively influence behavior and will be critical to any occupant‐controlled electricity reduction campaign.   Funding    Support in the form of financial commitment of resources from the Chancellor and senior campus leadership for the program office is essential to ensure its success. To fund a campuswide initiative to reduce occupant‐controlled electricity use, we recommend that efforts be made to secure OE “start‐up cost” funding. Our research on similar energy reduction campaigns and initiatives at other universities shows that investments have led to significant energy savings. Savings from these energy conservation efforts have often resulted in the programs paying for themselves.    In addition to financial support from Operation Excellence, our earlier recommendation for coordinating the “behind the scenes” (mechanical, technological, and structural) improvement on the UC Berkeley campus with the occupant‐controlled initiative will allow for greater collaboration and sharing of resources, such as funding for these efforts.     We recommend enlisting the support of key faculty members and research centers on campus, such as the Center for Built Environment, to leverage greater support and funding for any occupant‐controlled energy reduction initiative. Another potential funding source for the initiative can come from the Green Initiative Fund (TGIF) that provides funding support for various sustainability projects on UC Berkeley’s campus for students, faculty and staff. In line with our recommendation that the program office rollout the energy reduction initiative on a building‐by‐building basis, these piloted buildings could be given priority for these funds to support the rollout of an occupant‐controlled energy initiative.  

 

 

  

 

 

36

SUGGESTED NEXT STEPS FOR THE OE ENERGY MANAGEMENT DESIGN TEAM 

 As we conducted research and analysis, and had lengthy discussions about our 

recommendations, we recognized that there were many issues that unfortunately fell outside the project scope. We also found ourselves brainstorming solutions that did not fit within the confines of our report. We include them here, in the hope that they might be helpful to the OE Design Team. The composition of the single program office was one of our most debated points. For the purposes of this report, we include a basic graphic of what that office might look like during the pilot phase (see Appendix I). Should the pilot be successful, we could envision an expansion of that office – we have included this “aspirational” expansion in the appendices (see Appendix J).   

A key issue that must be given a great deal of thought in the near future is the culture around research being conducted in a sustainable manner. Berkeley takes great pride in being “environmentally conscious,” but we have not taken an in‐depth look at how we conduct our research on campus, or had in‐depth conversations with faculty about what positive changes we could make to increase the sustainability and reduce the energy impact of that research.  

We discussed various strategies and actions for integrating a sustainability focus on campus. Some ideas that came up for faculty and staff included: sponsoring an environmental leadership program for faculty and staff to both encourage and recognize innovation; establishing green lab purchasing practices and a green lab audit program that provides research labs with best practices and resources for conducting sustainable research; and finally, establishing green “classroom” standards for printing (e.g. course documents and assignments), and purchasing (e.g. books and readers). We could also imagine implementing a sustainability curriculum as a general education requirement to promote sustainability literacy and practice for students.  New Ideas    

We talked about the many ways that energy conservation could become part of the culture of campus – one of the easiest being a plan to communicate the effort the moment a new employee comes to UC Berkeley. Information could be included in the hiring packet, as part of new employee orientation. New employees could be encouraged to take a “pledge” through the Blu website. Many ideas came up around how to publicize these efforts to the broader campus. The idea of switching off the lights at a home football game for a few “seconds of savings,” came up. Having a “Green Day,” on campus (and inviting the band of the same name, who live locally and got their start in Berkeley clubs) to play on the steps of Sproul Plaza or at a free concert at the Greek, and encouraging everyone to “show their green” clothing that day would be a dramatic launch to this initiative.    Creative funding was also discussed. Could TGIF grants be prioritized to buildings participating in the pilot or subsequent rollout? Could faculty be encouraged to include “green costs” in their research budgets? Is there a way to package our initiative, and market it to other universities?    Conclusion  

We believe these recommendations will create a campus climate where energy awareness and conservation becomes a social norm. Combined with energy efficiency upgrades, this proposed initiative will help position the campus to realize the $3–4 million in cost‐savings identified in the OE report. 

 

 

37

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

 Print Resources  Ahmed, Fahmida. “UC Berkeley Climate Action: Final Report, 2006‐2007,” 2007.   Andreasen, Alan R. “Marketing Social Marketing in the Social Change Marketplace,” Journal of Public Policy & Marketing, 2002.  Andreasen, Alan R. Marketing Social Change. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass, 1995.  Ariely, Dan. Predictably Irrational. New York: Harper Perennial, revised edition 2010.  Arnold, Stephen J. and Jay M. Handelman. “The Role of Marketing Actions with a Social Dimension:  Appeals to the Institutional Environment,” The Journal of Marketing, 1999.    Borenstein, Severin. "The Redistributional Impact of Non‐Linear Electricity Pricing." March 2010.  Cialdini, Robert B. Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion. New York: Harper Paperbacks, 2006.  Cialdini, Robert B.  ”Basic Social Influence is Underestimated,” Psychological Inquiry, 2005.  “Change Management for Energy Efficient Computing at Berkeley,” LDP Project, November 2008  Earle, Richard. The Art of Cause Marketing. New York: McGraw‐Hill, 2000.  Evans, Claire and Irene Seliverstov. “Building Sustainability at Cal: Spring 2009 Final Report,” 2009.  Futerra Sustainability Communications. “New Rules, New Games: Communications Tactics for Climate Change.”  Khan, Omar and John Canny. “Promoting Environmentally Sustainable Behaviors Using Social Marketing in Emerging Persuasive Technologies.” Berkeley Institute of Design, Computer Science Division, University of California, Berkeley, 2009.  McMaken, Andrea H., Elizabeth L. Malone and Regina E. Lundgren. "Motivating Residents to Conserve Energy Without Financial Incentive," February 2002.  Mankoff, Jennifer; Scott Matthews, Susan Fussell and Michael Johnson. “Leveraging Social Networks to Motivate Individuals to Reduce their Ecological Footprint,” HICSS Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, 2007.  Monte, Lutz. "The Social Pulpit: Barack Obama's Social Media Toolkit." Edleman‐ Digital Public Affairs, www.edelman.com. 2009.  Miller, R. “Driving Behavioral Change: A Pilat HR Solutions White Paper,” 2010.  

 

 

38

Nutbeam, Don; Elizabeth Harris and Marilyn Wise. Theory in a Nutshell. New York: McGraw Hill, 2004.  Pempek, T, Yevdokiya, Y, Calvert, S. "College Students' Social Networking Experiences on Facebook." Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology 30(2009), pg. 227‐238  Perez, Pat. "Potential Impacts of Climate Change on California Energy Infrastructure and Identification of Adaptation Measures." California Energy Commission, January 2009.  Powers, Thomas L., John E. Swan and Seung‐Dong Lee. "Identifying and Understanding the Energy Conservation Consumer: A Macromarketing Systems Approach." Journal of Macromarketing, 1992.  Schulz, P. Wesley and Jessica M. Nolan, et al. “The Constructive, Destructive and Reconstructive Power of Social Norms,” Association of Psychological Science, 2007.  Siero, Frans W., Arnold B. Bakker, et al.  “Changing Organizational Energy Consumption Behavior Through Comparative Feedback,” Journal of Environmental Psychology, 1996.    Smith, Eric R.A.N., Juliet Carlisle and Kristy Michaud. "Trust During an Energy Crisis," University of California Energy Institute, June 2003.  Sunstein, Cass and Richard H. Thaler. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth and Happiness. Penguin Books, 2008.  Online Resources:  Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education www.aashe.org  BC Hydro http://www.bchydro.com/powersmart/team_power_smart/how_it_works.html   Behavior, Energy and Climate Change conference http://www.aceee.org/conf/09becc/09beccindex.htm  Berkeley Energy and Resource Collaborative www.berc.berkeley.edu/   Building Sustainability @ Cal  http://buildingsustainability.berkeley.edu/   California Institute for Energy and Environment http://calclimate.berkeley.edu/participating‐entities/california‐institute‐energy‐and‐environment  Chancellors Advisory Committee on Sustainability http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/cacs/   Climate Action Plan http://sustainability.berkeley.edu/calcap/cap2009.html  

 

 

39

 Conservation and Resource Studies Student Organization  http://enviro.berkeley.edu/node/153   Energy Institute at Haas http://ei.haas.berkeley.edu/  The Environmental Coalition  http://berkeleyeco.org/   Flex Your Power http://www.fypower.org/pdf/BPG_Biz3_Target_Employ.pdf http://www.fypower.org/bpg/case_study.html?b=institutional&c=San_Francisco%2c_City_of  Green Computing http://greencomputing.berkeley.edu/   Green Facilities Services http://www.facilities.berkeley.edu/GreenBuildings/use_savings.html (  Green Campus  http://ase.org/content/article/detail/3037   Greening the Greeks  http://students.berkeley.edu/osl/studentgroups/public/index.asp?todo=getgroupinfo&SGID=14303  Green Report Card http://www.greenreportcard.org/  Green Schools List Serve GRNSCH‐L@LISTSERV.BROWN.EDU  Higher Ed Sustainability Conference Best Practice Awards http://2010higheredsustainabilityconference.org/bp_awards/best‐practice‐awards.php  Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory https://commons.lbl.gov/display/sustainlbl/Welcome+to+%27sustainLBL%27+‐+Building+a+Sustainable+Berkeley+Lab;jsessionid=5F3EF2541726905CE24333AF3FA417A0 (Advanced Electrical Metering Plan FY2009) https://commons.lbl.gov/download/attachments/53805156/LBNL_FY+2009+Advanced+Electric+Metering+Plan+Apr‐2009.pdf?version=1&modificationDate=1275521623607  National Wildlife Campus Ecology Website http://www.nwf.org/campusEcology/resources/yearbook/dspYearbookbyTopic.cfm  Operational Excellence http://berkeley.edu/oe/   

 

 

40

Oklahoma State University http://osu.okstate.edu/welcome/ Video with OSU president is at: http://www.energyeducation.com/  Pacific Gas & Electric http://www.pge.com/mybusiness/energysavingsrebates/incentivesbyindustry/  Students for a Greener Berkeley http://sgb.berkeley.edu/    Texas A&M University http://utilities.tamu.edu/  University of California Energy Institute http://www.ucei.berkeley.edu/  UC Berkeley Sustainability Team (STeam)  http://enviro.berkeley.edu/node/1648   University of California Davis http://sustainability.ucdavis.edu/progress/waste_reduction/index.html http://vcadmin.ucdavis.edu/sustainability.cfm  University of California Los Angeles http://www.sustain.ucla.edu/  University of California San Diego http://sustainability.ucsd.edu/  University of Maryland http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/content/culture/energywise.php  University of Michigan http://planetblue.umich.edu/ http://www.plant.bf.umich.edu/utilities/Utilities/ http://www.climatesavers.umich.edu/projects/powerdownchallenge.html http://www.isr.umich.edu/energypilot/index.html  University of Oregon‐ Eugene http://sustainability.uoregon.edu/  Yale University http://sustainability.yale.edu/  

Appendix A: Project Charter

41

Appendix A: Project Charter

42

Appendix A: Project Charter

43

Appendix A: Project Charter

44

External interviews (alpha order) Tom Abrams, Outreach coordinator, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Andrew Berki, Environmental Stewardship and Emergency Planning Manager, University of Michigan Kevin Bright, Coordinator of Green Building Services, Harvard University Jeffrey Courson, Outreach coordinator, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Blair Horst, Sustainability Manager, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Nurit Katz, Sustainability Coordinator, University of California, Los Angeles David Keffer, Coordinator of Green Building Services, University of Tennessee-Knoxville Susan Kulakowski, Lead Coordinator of Stanford Sustainability and Energy Management, Stanford Heather Lair, Project Manager, Office of Sustainability, University of Maryland Steve Mital, Director of Sustainability, University of Oregon, Eugene Anuja Mudali, Communications Specialist, Planet Blue, University of Michigan Jim Riley, Director for Utilities & Energy Management, Texas A&M University Dale Sartor, Applications Team Building Technology, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Mike Swanson, Utility Services Manager, University of Michigan Cindy Pollock Shea, Director of Sustainability, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Jayson Shmueli, Program Marketing Manager, Demand Responses Marketing, PG&E Whitney Stull, Bain & Co. Internal Interviews (alpha order) Carl Blumstein, Director, California Institute for the Environment Sam Borgeson, Campus Dashboard Project Stewart Brown, Stanley Hall, Facilities & Bldg Mgr. Judy Chess, Assistant Director for Green Buildings Chris Christofferson, Assistant Vice Chancellor, Physical Plant David Culler (Professor, EECS) Claire Evans, Chancellor’s Advisory Committee on Sustainability (CACS) and Building Sustainability at Cal (BS@C) Kira Stoll, Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) Peggy Huston, Director, OE Program Office Kim LaPean, Communications Manager, University Health Services Patrick MacArdle, Program Mgr. for SEP Capital Projects Scott McNally, Building Manager, Cory Hall Morwenna Rowe, Green Campus Eli Perszyk - Facilities Mgr, Wurster Hall Joe Watz, Director of Marketing, Recreational Sports Catherine Wolfram, Energy Resources Group LDP Go Green Project (2008)

Appendix B: Complete list of interview subjects

45

Internal (UC Berkeley) Interview Questions

Organizational Objective and Practice

1. What are you /what is your organization doing to reduce occupant controlled electricity use on campus?

2. What tools are you using to communicate /educate electricity users on campus? a. Can you describe your marketing efforts, if any (print, web, other)? b. Do your efforts incorporate any form of social marketing? c. Did you target or identify specific groups in your efforts to reduce electricity use? d. Do you have any material that you are willing to share with us?

3. Do you solicit feedback on your program? a. Can you share examples of the type of feedback that you’ve received?

4. Are you providing any training to other groups or individuals on campus? 5. What are some of the barriers or challenges you’ve faced in your work to reduce energy use on

campus? Resources

6. What is your budget? 7. How many people are on your staff? 8. Do you have anyone who is responsible for marketing? 9. What other resources do you have at your disposal? 10. Are you working with other groups? If so, which groups?

Defining Outcomes

11. What has been your greatest success and why? a. How do you define success? b. Can you share any measurable outcomes? c. Who do you feel are the key stake-holders who have enabled or helped you reduce

electricity use on campus? 12. How do you feel that your success can be expanded across the campus?

Appendix C: Internal and external interview questions

46

External Interview Questions

1. Please, tell us about your program (any specifically aimed at reducing occupant controlled electricity use)

2. Who is the target audience for your program? 3. How long did it take to design your program? To implement? 4. How (if at all) was IT consumption considered in the development and implementation of your

program? Community Outreach and Education:

5. How did you structure your program for participation? (i.e., incentives, disincentives, competition, marketing, recognition, other etc.)

a. Do you bill departments/units for energy consumption?

6. What, if any, social marketing efforts were included in your program? Goals and Accomplishments:

7. How do you measure success/change impact of your program? How do you publicize success? 8. What feedback mechanism(s) do you have?

Engagement and Support:

9. At what level is your program supported (i.e., department, division, chancellor, etc.) 10. Is this program a part of your institution’s strategic plan?

Funding and Resources:

11. What is the cost of running your program and how is this funded? 12. What are some incentives that have been successful with your program? 13. Who sustains your program? a. What resources do you have available? b. How many people are on your staff? c. Do you have an individual(s) in charge of marketing?

Challenges and Responses:

14. How has your program evolved? 15. Do you have lessons learned from design or implementation of your program? 16. What accountability mechanism do you have in place?

In Closing:

17. Do you have any documents that you are willing to share with our group?

Appendix C: Internal and external interview questions

47

PLANET BLUE PILOT BUILDING RESULTS

June 10, 2009

Background

Steam and electricity are the primary energy sources for central campus buildings.

We monitor and track energy data by individual building.

We implement a wide variety of Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) specific to each building.  Some examples include:

Occupancy sensors for lighting

Optimization/interconnection of chillers 

HVAC scheduling adjustments 

Restroom water faucet modifications

Planet Blue

Planet Blue began in 2007 with five pilot buildings.

The five pilot buildings were:  Chemistry, Fleming, Institute for Social Research, Rackham and Space Research.

Planet Blue engages building occupants by educating them on "best practices" for conservation and ways to reduce consumption.

Results

Energy consumption decreased by 6% for the five pilot buildings collectively.

Annualized cost avoidance is $340K (based on the last 12 months).

Planet Blue is actively engaged in 30 buildings for FY09.

Details by Building

We realized noticeable energy savings in three of the five pilot buildings:

Energy Reduction Cost Avoidance Key ECMs and Activities

ISR 26% $191K Chiller interconnection, HVAC scheduling, occupancy sensors

Rackham 32% $210K Fan schedule reductions & equipment sequencing, occupancy sensors

Space Research 17% $62K Air handler upgrades, steam trap replacements, building tune‐ups

We encountered more challenging situations in two of the five pilot buildings that impacted potential savings:

Chemistry:   Historical electric data are articially low due to old meters that were replaced in February 2007.

New meters now provide more accurate readings, but consequently it appears that electric consumption is increasing.

While we have reduced steam usage, the net result to the building is negligible ($17K).  However, several projects

are still in progress and we expect significantly lower usage in the future.

Fleming:   Energy usage increase of 28% ($106K) due to a variety of factors, including local server room cooling requirement.

A majority of the servers were relocated to a central location in May 2009 and we modified fan schedules accordingly.

Consumption is expected to decrease going forward.

Appendix D: Planet Blue results 2008 & 2009

48

Sustainability Summary—Planet Blue Pilot Buildings 

Report Date: April 23, 2010 

Reporting Period: CY 2009 (Jan. 2009 – Dec. 2009) 

Utility Data for the pilot buildings from Jan. ‐Dec. 2009 indicates the following:  

(NOTE: Increases/decreases baselined to weather‐adjusted historical usage pattern) 

• Avoided $481,000/year in energy costs at FY10 rates 

• Decreased overall energy usage by net 11% 

• Decreased steam usage by 15% 

• Increased electrical usage by 4% 

• Energy avoidance is equal to what is required annually to power, heat, and cool 360 average US 

households 

Carbon Emissions Impact 

• Avoided 1,993 Metric Tons/year of CO2 

• CO2 avoidance is equal to removing 399 average automobiles from US roads 

Major Energy Conservation Measures (highlights) 

• ISR—Fan scheduling, connected two separate chillers to permit shared capacity 

• Rackham—Thermostat setbacks, fan scheduling, improved chiller sequencing to reduce cycling 

Recycling  

• Average FY08 Recycling Rate: 39.2% (FY08 Campus Average: 31%) 

• Average FY09 Recycling Rate: 41.9% (FY09 Campus Average: 33%) 

Pilot Buildings: 

Chemistry 

Fleming  

ISR 

Rackham 

Space Research 

 

 

Appendix D: Planet Blue results 2008 & 2009

49

Sustainability Summary—Planet Blue FY2009 Buildings 

Report Date: April 23, 2010 

Reporting Period: CY 2009 (Jan. 2009 – Dec. 2009) 

Utility Data for the pilot buildings from Jan. ‐Dec. 2009 indicates the following:  

(NOTE: Increases/decreases baselined to weather‐adjusted historical usage pattern) 

• Avoided $1,483,000/year in energy costs at FY10 rates 

• Decreased overall energy usage by 8% 

• Decreased steam usage by 10% 

• Decreased electrical usage by 5% 

• Energy avoidance is equal to what is required annually to power, heat, and cool 663 average US 

households 

Carbon Emissions Impact 

• Avoided 5,773 Metric Tons/year of CO2 

• CO2 avoidance is equal to removing 1,155 average automobiles from US roads 

Major Energy Conservation Measures (highlights) 

• New electric‐centrifugal chiller at East U Chiller Plant (activated June 2009) significantly reduced 

steam costs for East U region, including CC Little, Dennison, and West Hall. 

• Angell Complex, including Haven: LS&A initiated broad fan scheduling efforts in 2007‐2008 that 

resulted in significant energy savings. 

• Power Center:  Air handling unit upgrade and scheduling ECM (completed March 2008) resulted 

in heating, cooling, and electrical energy savings. 

Recycling  

• Average FY08 Recycling Rate: 30.6% (FY08 Campus Average: 31%) 

• Average FY09 Recycling Rate: 29.5% (FY09 Campus Average: 33%) 

FY2009 Buildings: 

Angell‐Haven Hall Addn  EECS Building  CC Little Building  Shapiro Library 

Art & Architecture  ERB 1  Med Sci 1  Taubman Med Library 

Canham Natatorium  ERB 2  Med Sci 2  Thayer Building 

Coliseum  Gerstacker  Mendelssohn  Towsley 

Computer Science Eng  Hatcher North  News & Information  West Hall 

Dennison  Hatcher South  Palmer Commons   Wolverine Tower 

Dow  Hill Auditorium  Perry Building   

Duderstadt Center  Lane Hall  Power Center   

 

Appendix D: Planet Blue results 2008 & 2009

50

Appendix E: Stanley Hall Energy Conservation Survey Summary Report - Jul/24/2010

How would you rate your interest in energy efficiency and sustainability in your workspace?

Value Count Percent %

Somewhat interested. 52 52% Very interested/passionate. 45 45% Indifferent. 3 3%

Statistics Total Responses 100

Currently, what energy-saving measures do you practice while working in Stanley Hall?

51

Appendix E: Stanley Hall Energy Conservation Survey

Value Count Percent

% I turn off the overhead lights when my workspace is unoccupied. 83 83% I turn off my computer at the end of the day. 60 60% I turn off other appliances (coffee makers, desk lights, etc) at the end of the day.

51 51%

I practice other energy-saving measures (not listed here). 38 38% I don't do any of these things. 3 3%

Statistics Total Responses 100 If you answered "Other" to the above question, please specify some of the energy-saving practices you implement in your workspace. Response Data

• I turn off the lights in the bathroom. I minimize the time that I open fridge and

freezer doors.

• Recycle and reuse paper. Use metal utensils instead of plastic and tupperware

instead of paper plates.

• During the day I leave the lab lights on but I don't use the overhead lights in my

office - I use the window instead. • I only have equipment on when needed.

• Leave the overhead lights off all of the time (we have windows). Sleep computer

during the week; shutdown for weekends.

• I turn off monitors, but not computers. The computers are server level and are

running data analysis over night.

• The overhead light in my office does not run off even when we turn the light switch

off for the entire office. I do turn off my work space light. • Turn off bathroom lights when not in use

• I also unplug my power cord at the end of the day, to avoid "phantom use" or

whatever it's called. And I always turn off the light in the bathroom if I'm the last to leave!

• Turn off lights in bathroom and common spaces, conserve water, compost food

scraps.

• I leave my computer on after hours, as it functions as a server for my research, but I

do have the displays turn off after I leave and hard drives spin down if I'm not using it remotely.

• while it is not energy usage within the building, the recycling programs indirectly

result in lower energy usage. • Remain conscious of use of consumables during work / minimize use when possible.

• Closing hood sashes, turning off hood lights, shutting down unused equipment and

streamlining processes

52

Appendix E: Stanley Hall Energy Conservation Survey

How would you rate your ability to control light levels in your workspace?

Value Count Percent %

Adequate - I can turn lights on and off. 78 78% Excellent - I can adjust light as needed. 17 17% Poor - I don't know how to control the lighting in my workspace. 5 5%

Statistics Total Responses 100

If energy-saving temperature setbacks were implemented in Stanley, which possible side-effects would be ACCEPTABLE in your lab space?

Value Count Percent %

Slightly warmer in the evenings 64 64% Slightly colder in the mornings 62 62% My lab space cannot tolerate any temperature fluctuations 17 17%

Statistics Total Responses 100

53

Appendix E: Stanley Hall Energy Conservation Survey If Stanley were to launch a Green Lab Certification program, do you think you and your colleagues would be interested in certifying your lab?

Value Count Percent %

Maybe, if it was easy. 63 63% Yes 32 32% No 5 5%

Statistics Total Responses 100

Would you be interested in learning more about Stanley's energy conservation program or the campus-wide Strategic Energy Plan? If so, how would you prefer to learn about it?

Value Count Percent

% Yes - I'd look at displays/signs posted in the building. 66 66% Yes - I'd read an e-newsletter. 48 48% Yes - I'd stop by a table if they were handing out information. 27 27% Yes - I'd talk to a sustainability specialist or staff member about what's going 22 22%

54

Appendix E: Stanley Hall Energy Conservation Survey

Value Count Percent

% on in Stanley if they stopped by my office. No - I'm not interested in this topic. 9 9%

Statistics Total Responses 100

Would you be interested in being part of a Stanley Efficiency Team, and helping with peer outreach to reduce energy consumption?

Value Count Percent %

No 59 59% Maybe, depending on the responsibilities. 35 35% Yes 6 6%

Statistics Total Responses 100 Do you have any suggestions on how Stanley Hall, or your lab specifically, could improve its energy efficiency (either structural changes or better practices by its occupants)?

Response Data

• First of all - we experience WILD temperature fluctuations in 492 on a daily basis. Our lab temperature varies +/- 10 degrees over the time scale of a few hours. When it is cold out, our AC is on and it is too cold in lab. We should not have to wear jackets inside in summer! Simply monitoring and controlling temperature fluctuations would save a lot of money and energy.

• The motion sensors in the conference room, specifically S421, click incessantly. This is maddening during meetings where the room is generally silent. If the clicking can't be fixed, I imagine in very short order users of the room will figure out a way to disable the sensors and subvert the energy-saving measures.

55

Appendix E: Stanley Hall Energy Conservation Survey

Response Data

• Better design of building heating and cooling. Right now, many rooms are simulataneously heated AND cooled to attain constant temperature, which is necessary for some applications (e.g. crystal growth, microscopy, etc). I suspect that the impact of these design flaws dwarfs the consequences of the behaviors of most individual scientists.

• Turn off as much lab equipment as possible when not in use. Use motion sensor

hallway and common room lighting such that lights are turned off when nobody is present.

• Temperature regulation seems odd-- often too warm in the morning and too cold in

the afternoon, even when the day is very warm. Reduce hallway lighting in evenings. • Closing fume hoods when not in active use; turning off instrument computers; • add motion sensor light controls to conference rooms, hallways, elevators, etc.

• Yes, the motion sensor in the offie (656 main) doesn't always work well so it turns off

when people are sitting there. It may have been addressed already but that would be something to fix if it hasn't been already.

•

• Have auto shut off lights when rooms not occupied- they have this in Europe in old

building hallways. Reduce overall lighting levels throughout the building. Reason I don't shut off my computer is to use auto backup at night.

• Mandatory furloughs for graduate students! • Decrease the A/C in the conference rooms. They're really cold. • closing the sashes on the chem hoods. • Make more efficient use of cold room space.

• The emergency lights are more than needed - turning off lights results in only @ 1/2 going off - what about 3/4?. Make longer hrs when people call to get lights on. Make sure janitors turn off (often don't). Open the windows in the Atrium more to get fresh air in and breezes - seems silly to heat air and then cool it when better circulation would make temps better. Focus on replacing refrigerators with more energy efficient. Energy saver modes on copy machines (we recently upgraded). Encourage more stair climbing/less elevators. More wifi less plug ins. In general, we could be cooler in winter (wear sweaters!) and warmer in summer than we are. Thanks!

• 1. Wild temperature fluctuations in 242 must have serious energy requirements. 2. Allow individual labs to set the times at which the lights automatically turn off/on and in which rooms. 3. Fix water heaters in mens' restroom on 2nd floor so that we don't have to take so much time trying to adjust to a good water temperature. 4. Install automatic paper towel dispensers/driers in restrooms. Or use low- or no-flow urinals.

• Turn off lights when leaving the room.

• Motion-sensor lights Smarter elevator Don't have heat and cooling running in the

same room at the same time Instant water heaters in the restroom should not be so hot Dyson Airblade dryers in restrooms Lower ambient temperatures in the

56

Appendix E: Stanley Hall Energy Conservation Survey

Response Data equipment rooms (so that the fridges and freezers therein don't work as hard)

• Shutting off things people don't use could be a big savings, if you can actually make

sure people will do it. • Avoid over-cooling rooms.

• Turn off overhead lights in the hallway. The building has plenty of windows, there's no need for those lights to be on.

• less air conditioning. It is often very cold in my office, but rarely too warm. • Conference rooom's AC is way too cold very often. The same happens often in our lab.

• - In our lab (Rine) there are two light switches, and each one controls half the lights in the lab, throughout the entire lab. So, if only one switch is flipped, the entire lab is half as bright as we would like. So, when we come in on the weekend, we turn on all the lights, even if only one person is there. It would make more sense to have all the lights on one side be controlled by one switch, and all the lights on the other side controlled by the other. I don't know if that's possible. - We cannot have temperatures change in the labspace over the course of the day, because we run experiments in the labspace that require temperatures to remain relatively constant.

• Our lab in 542 Stanley is always cold. I'm not sure if that's energy efficient.

• Blow dryers instead of paper towels in bathrooms. Closing biohoods and chemhoods after use. Reagent minimization.

• Motion sensor lights in hallways and common areas after hours. • Adjustable lights. Cut down on paper usage wherever possible.

• Label light switches so we can easily figure out what switch turns on what light (especially in conference rooms) Use timers on certain equipment, such as heat blocks, that need to be on all day but could be turned off at night Switch remaining CRTs to LCD displays where practical consolidate servers (replacing single-processor machines with multi-core machines)

• Not at this moment

• Our lab doesn't really need heat or cooling so long as the offices stay warm in winter. We

don't really need hot water in the lab either. Is there enough waste liquid N2 vent gas to cool a freezer/cold storage setup? I think freezers are the big power-suck in our lab.

• Change the light switches in the bathrooms to be motion sensitive and turn off after a certain time period without motion.

• Lighting could be more adjustable in the lab. Individuals could turn off computers when

they leave at night.

• Turn off the stairwell lights during the day where there are windows. I never understood

why they are on in the first place.

• The temperature control is need it to be adjust. Sometimes it get to COLD in this room. It

doesn't matter what time of a day it is. They need to be adjust the temperature to at least 69 degree from morning till evening.

• There are already large temperature fluctuations in Stanley so I don't think it would really

affect anything if you were to implement this program. • The large Atrium is always very warm. Is there some way of isolating it so it isn't heated

57

Appendix E: Stanley Hall Energy Conservation Survey

Response Data and/or using the openable windows to regulate the temperature?

• Office temperature regulation is a huge issue and waste of energy as the air conditioning is

on almost constantly requiring space heaters to be run periodically.

• The motion-activated office lights are nice, but the two buttons aren't labeled and are confusing. Send out a tutorial on how to work them? For office workers - provide or advise on power strips with big switches, and help wire office equipment (desktop speakers, printers, etc) so it's easy to turn all off at end of day on strip. Put motion sensing lighting in the restrooms.

• The temperature in my lab fluctuates from high 70s to low 70s. It seems really wasteful,

and we've complained about it, but apparently nothing can be done. We would greatly appreciate it if more could be done.

• nope

• The hallway lights are constantly on, and the bathroom lights only dim. I imagine we waste

a ton of energy that way, which could be fixed by installing motion sensors.

• Our lab is pretty good re: energy. By having plenty of windows, we use the lights only rarely, and computers are probably our biggest drain. The climate control in Stanley is definitely a problem though. Within our relatively small office area, there is a roughly 10 degree temperature variation -- usually some offices are 5 degrees too warm and the others are 5 degrees too cool. It seems like this kind of differential is counterproductive (not too mention a bit uncomfortable) and causing the air conditioning to work too hard.

• expanded recycling programs (batteries etc). is there a way to recycle any plastics etc

within the lab space, or does this all have to be tossed?

• Put up flyers showing a breakdown of which lab equipment uses which energy; info about

phantom (standby) energy use; provide more opportunities to recycle consumables (esp. Falcon tubes, etc); auto lights off on our floor (4); LESS AC!

• The BNC has huge hot-cold temperature fluctuations that likely waste large amounts of energy. The late night lighting system needs an online method of activation as many rooms lack a telephone. Efforts at optimizing building flows are hampered by their frequency. As signage is never removed or dated users have no idea when tests are over and consequently ignore signs.

58

TenTenTenTen Key Findings & Key Findings & Key Findings & Key Findings & RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

Robert W. Marans Robert W. Marans Robert W. Marans Robert W. Marans ---- Project Director Project Director Project Director Project Director

Lesli Scott Lesli Scott Lesli Scott Lesli Scott ---- Survey Director Survey Director Survey Director Survey Director

Survey Research CenterSurvey Research CenterSurvey Research CenterSurvey Research Center Institute for Social ResearchInstitute for Social ResearchInstitute for Social ResearchInstitute for Social Research

University of MichiganUniversity of MichiganUniversity of MichiganUniversity of Michigan

Spring 20Spring 20Spring 20Spring 2007070707

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

59

2

Key Findings – 1 Knowledge and Ratings of UM Energy Reduction Efforts

Knowledge of what the U is doing

A significant number of faculty, staff, and students said they were unaware of UM efforts to

reduce utility costs on campus and in their particular building. Similarly, they were unaware of

the role played by UM’s leadership in the area of energy conservation.

When asked to rate UM’s efforts and the efforts made in their building to reduce utility costs, a

third of the faculty said “don’t know”. About one in three staff members were unaware of UM’s

cost reduction efforts and one in five were unaware of reduction efforts in their particular

building.

About a third of the students said “don’t know” when asked to rate UM’s reduction efforts and

43 percent said “don’t know” when asked about efforts in their department.

A third of the students said “don’t know” when asked to rate UM’s leadership in the area of

energy conservation. Four in ten faculty and staff gave the same response.

Rating of U’s efforts in energy conservation

Of the faculty and staff who rated UM in its efforts to reduce utility costs, about six in ten said

fair or poor. More than half of the faculty (55 percent) and half of the staff gave similar ratings to

efforts within their own building.

Ratings were similar among students, irrespective of their year in school. Half said that UM’s

efforts to reduce energy costs on campus were fair or poor and more than half (55 percent) who

rated utility reduction efforts in their department gave them poor or fair marks.

Assessment of UM’s leadership in the area of energy conservation

Of the faculty and staff who rated UM’s leadership in energy conservation, six in ten faculty

members and half of the staff said it was fair or poor. Of the students who assessed UM’s

leadership, more than half rated it as fair or poor.

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

UM needs to launch a publicity campaign letting faculty, students and staff know of its

concerted efforts to reduce energy consumption in buildings (and in transportation). The

rationale for the campaign should be:

a. It will save the U (and members of the UM community) money.

b. It will reduce the burning of fossil fuels and UM’s contribution to global warming.

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

60

3

Launching the campaign should be part of a presidential initiative and strongly endorsed by the

board of regents.

The campaign should be launched throughout the university after clear reduction targets have

been set and after action steps and monitoring procedures have been established.

Key Findings – 2 Energy Fest – Participation & Impacts

Participation in Energy Fest

When asked if they had ever participated in a UM Energy Fest, just 2 percent of the faculty and

staff responded affirmatively and 8 percent said they didn’t know. Staff members at Rackham

were most likely to have participated (4 percent).

One in eight members of the faculty and staff from the Chemistry Building indicated they

weren’t sure if they had participated in the Energy Fest.

Student participation rates were no better. Just 3 percent said they participated and 7 percent said

they didn’t know. Not surprisingly, freshmen were least likely to say they participated (less than

one percent) and seniors and grad students were most likely to have participated.

Impacts of Energy Fest

Despite the low levels of participation in Energy Fest, it appears to have a positive impact on

several factors. There were significant relationships between participation and willingness to

accept warmer temperatures in summer requiring lighter clothing and to work in buildings where

evening temperatures were reduced during the winter months. For example, 89 percent of

faculty and staff from the four pilot buildings who had participated said they were willing to

wear lighter summer clothing when building temperatures were lowered. For non-participants in

the Energy Fest, 71 percent indicated a willingness to behave accordingly. Among those who

didn’t know about the Energy Fest, 51 percent expressed a willingness.

Although other questions showed a tendency for Energy Fest participation to influence the

willingness of faculty and staff to change their behaviors, accept energy-saving building changes,

or behave more appropriately with respect to energy conservation, the findings were statistically

insignificant.

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

UM needs to re-think the Energy Fest program as to frequency and venue. Once or twice a year

may not be frequent enough and the locations (Diag and Pierpont Commons) may not reach as

many people as had been anticipated.

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

61

4

Consideration should be given to having the Energy Fest displays rotating around campus

(weekly or monthly) throughout the academic year.

Consideration should be given to running the Energy Fest in key locations within the four pilot

buildings during a three-month period and then measure outcomes such as participation, likes

and dislikes, etc.

Key Findings – 3

Awareness of Posters

Awareness of UM energy posters

Somewhat more than half of the faculty and three-quarters of the staff said they were aware of

the energy posters in UM’s buildings. Similarly, when shown the most recently distributed “Use

Your Power Wisely” posters, just half of the faculty and three-quarters of the staff said they had

seen them. Both faculty and staff were less familiar with earlier energy posters.

Two-thirds of the faculty and half the staff had not seen the earlier “Keep It Warm” poster

whereas nine in ten faculty and two-third of the staff had not seen the initial “So Much Power”

poster.

Students were equally unaware of the posters. More than half said they were not aware of the

campaign although level of awareness was somewhat related to their status. Graduate students

were more aware of the posters than undergraduates. Yet the level of awareness was no different

between freshmen, sophomores, and seniors while juniors were even less aware of building

posters.

When shown specific posters, relationships were more linear. That is, freshmen were least likely

to have seen the posters, followed by sophomores, juniors and seniors, and then graduate

students.

In the focus groups involving staff, facility managers and students, participants indicated they

had seen posters reminding them to conserve energy. On the other hand, none of the faculty

participants mentioned posters until several were displayed. Once posters were displayed, just

half of faculty indicated they had seen them.

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

Word of UM energy reduction efforts including the use of posters needs to be communicated to

the entire university community. Distributing posters to key personnel in each building and

asking them to display them is not enough.

Guidelines should be developed as to where and how within buildings posters are displayed.

Putting them on bulletin boards where there is competition with other messages does not draw

attention. Nor should they be placed in those parts of buildings which are infrequently visited by

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

62

5

building occupants. Posters should be located at key locations within buildings such as at

entrances, elevators, and common spaces (faculty, staff, student lounges, etc.)

Key Findings – 4 Evaluation of Posters

Evaluation of UM energy posters

Faculty, staff, and students who had seen the energy posters were asked to evaluate them.

A third of the faculty and staff who had seen the “Use Your Power Wisely” poster said the post

was “very effective” or “somewhat effective” and two-thirds said it was “not very effective” or

“not at all effective”. Half the students thought the poster was effective.

Views about appeal of the “Use Your Power Wisely” poster and the extent to which it was read

also varied. Nearly half the faculty and more than a third of the staff (38 percent) and students

(36 percent) said it grabbed their attention “a little” or “not at all”. However, just one fourth of

the faculty and a third of the staff and students said they “read it thoroughly”.

Faculty, staff, and student evaluations of the “So Much Power” poster tended to be higher than

the evaluations of either the “Use Your Power Wisely” or the “Keep It Warm” posters.

The focus group sessions yielded similar findings. Many faculty, staff, and students thought the

“Use Your Power Wisely” posters showing historic figures were promoting a lecture or play.

Most thought they were ineffective in conveying their message and few stopped to read them

thoroughly. Only one person from all the focus group sessions reported visiting the website

referred to on the posters. In eight of the nine faculty and staff focus groups, there was consensus

that the posters were “too wordy”, “too complicated”, and “poorly designed”.

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

“Simplify the posters” was the overwhelming message conveyed in the focus group sessions.

Other factors to consider when designing posters are:

• Show a connection between desirable behaviors (i.e. turn off lights) and the resulting

benefits(i.e. saving utility costs, reducing CO2 emissions)

• Develop and publicize a memorable slogan such as those used in other successful

marketing campaigns (i.e. “take nothing but pictures, leave nothing but footprints”, “a

mind is a terrible thing to waste”)

• Messages should be direct and convey the behavior that is desired (i.e. “turn off your

lights”, “help us save energy”)

• The use of color in the posters. Some focus groups mentioned that green was appropriate

for conveying the conservation message while others did not like colors that were

associated with UM (i.e. maize and blue)

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

63

6

Key Findings – 5 Willingness to Accept Building Changes

Corridor Lighting

Both faculty members and staff are willing to work in buildings where corridor lights only go on

when someone enters the space. Nearly nine in ten from both groups said they’d be “very

willing” or “somewhat willing” to work under such conditions if it would help reduce energy use

in their building. Respondents who were “very willing” outnumbered those who were

“somewhat willing by 3 to one (65 percent versus 23 percent). Differences between staff and

faculty and differences between the four buildings were negligible.

Students were equally willing (88 percent) to work or study in buildings where corridor lighting

was activated by the presence of someone in the space.

Reduced Evening Hour Temperatures

During the winter months, faculty and staff are willing to accept reduced evening hour

temperatures in their buildings. Again, nine in ten from both groups said they’d be “very willing”

or “somewhat willing” to do so if it would help in reducing building energy use. Staff members

however were more likely than faculty members to give “very willing” responses (68 percent

versus 47 percent).

Whereas the majority (77 percent) of faculty and staff in the Chemistry building were willing to

accept lower evening temperatures, a significant number of the chemistry faculty (28 percent)

expressed an unwillingness to alter building temperatures at night. These views were also

expressed in the focus group session with faculty who indicated that many experiments require a

constant temperature over an extended period.

Students are somewhat less willing than faculty and staff to accept reduced evening temperatures

in the buildings where they study or work. Seven in ten said they were “very willing” or

“somewhat willing” to do so.

Reduced Building Temperatures during Winter Months

Nearly four in five faculty and staff and two-thirds of the students said they would accept cooler

building temperatures requiring them to wear heavier clothing. Among all groups, men were

more willing than women to wear heavier clothing during winter months.

Increased Building Temperatures during Summer Months

When asked about wearing lighter clothing during warm weather months, about two-thirds of all

groups said they were willing to do so. For both students and the faculty/staff groups, women

were more willing than men. For instance, 75 percent of the women faculty and staff members

agreed to wear lighter clothing during the summer if temperatures were raised. In contrast, 63

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

64

7

percent of the men agreed. Among students, women were more agreeable than men (70 percent

versus 61 percent).

Focus Groups Issues on Temperature Change

Focus group participants suggested factors that mitigate the impact of a less comfortable work

environment.

Last winter, Rackham enacted energy saving policies (lower temperatures) that resulted in

uncomfortable conditions for three-quarters of its occupants. During the focus group session with

Rackham staff, it was noted that there was greater acceptance of the change because the dean

responded to the conditions by wearing a sweater.

Mention was made in several sessions about variable temperatures in different parts of the

building. Participants indicated that it would be important to remedy situations where reducing

comfortable temperatures impacted some work areas more significantly than others.

There was extensive focus group discussion about the ability to control environmental conditions

at the individual work station. The ability to bring in heaters and fans was noted as well as the

lack of access to thermostats that regulated an individual’s space.

Finally, the importance of engaging workplace members in the development of new policies

regarding temperature rather than imposing top-down policies was discussed.

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations (see also Key Findings (see also Key Findings (see also Key Findings (see also Key Findings----7)7)7)7)

The majority of members of the university community (in the four buildings) indicate a

willingness to accept temperatures that are lower in the winter and higher in the summer and to

accommodate these changes by altering their mode of dress (heavier or lighter clothing).

However, there is a significant minority who are unwilling to do so.

If building temperatures are changed throughout the year as a means of reducing energy costs,

the concerns of faculty, staff, and students who would be unhappy by this action need to be

addressed. Programs should be developed at the university level and within buildings and/or

academic units that 1) explain the rationale for making temperature adjustments, 2) learn more

about the objections of individuals unwilling to alter their mode of dress, and 3) explore a range

of incentives that might minimize resistance to temperature changes.

Key Findings – 6 Availability & Use of Supplemental Lighting

Availability of Task Lighting and Lamps

Task lighting at workstations is prevalent within the four pilot buildings. Overall, nearly half of

the faculty and staff (46 percent) report having a lamp or other form of task lighting. Nearly all

the workstations in Rackham have task lighting built into the modular furniture. In the other

buildings, the proportion of work stations with task lighting ranges from 26 percent (Space

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

65

8

Research) to 40 percent (ISR) to 46 percent (Chemistry). There is a tendency in all the buildings

for task lighting to be more prevalent among staff than faculty.

The prevalence of task lighting was also confirmed in workstation observations. Of the sample

of workstations observed in the four buildings, 58 percent had at least one type of task lighting.

Most of the workstations in Rackham had desk lamps in addition to the furniture-integrated

lighting. While some furniture-integrated lighting was identified in other buildings, desk lamps

were the predominant form of supplemental lighting in Chemistry, Space Research and ISR. Our

observations suggest that these lamps are likely to be personal property of faculty and staff

(rather than UM property) and are used to provide supplemental lighting, personalize the work

space, and create an atmosphere.1

Of the students living in residence halls, nearly half (47 percent) reported having a desk lamp.

Uses of Task Lighting

When asked how often they turned off their lamps or task lights when leaving their desk for

more than a few minutes, less than a third of the faculty and staff said “Always” and 42 percent

said “Never”. The remainder said “Sometimes”. Least likely to turn off their task lamps were the

ISR staff.

Of the small sample of workstations containing task lighting that were unoccupied when the

observations were made, 17 percent of the task lights were on.

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

All the furniture-integrated lighting uses fluorescent bulbs. Although no systematic data are

available on the type of bulbs used in the desk lamps in the pilot buildings, we suspect that most

are incandescent rather than the more efficient compact fluorescent bulbs.

Procedures should be developed to replace incandescent bulbs with compact-fluorescent bulbs.

These should be provided by the U rather than the individual. These could be made available

through the facility manager in each building.

As part of the U’s campaign to raise the energy consciousness of members of the university

community, the benefits of using compact-fluorescent bulbs should be extolled including its

contributions to reducing energy costs and CO2 emissions and its emitting warm light

comparable to the warm light from incandescent bulb.

1 These observations are more impressionistic than systematic and are supported by comments made by ISR faculty and staff.

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

66

9

Key Findings - 7 Uncomfortable Working Conditions

& Job Performance

Uncomfortable Conditions

When asked about environmental conditions in their buildings, six in ten faculty members (59

percent) and nearly four in ten staff members (37 percent) said they were satisfied with

conditions during winter months. At the same time, a quarter of the faculty and half of the staff

were dissatisfied.

Expressions of satisfaction were roughly the same when asked about building conditions during

the summer months. Half the faculty (51 percent) and more than a third of the staff (35 percent)

were satisfied with environmental conditions during the warm weather months. However, there

was greater dissatisfaction with environmental conditions during this period than during the

winter months. A third of the faculty (34 percent) and half of the staff (48 percent) were

dissatisfied with summer conditions in the buildings.

Dissatisfaction with building conditions during the summer was highest in ISR (55 percent) and

lowest in Space Research (26 percent). During the winter, dissatisfaction was most likely to be

expressed by staff and faculty in Rackham (77 percent) and least likely to be heard from faculty

and staff in the Chemistry building.

Uncomfortable Conditions Impact Job Performance

One fifth (21 percent) of the faculty and 15 percent of the staff members said they missed work

during the past year because of uncomfortable working conditions such as temperatures which

are too high or too low. A third of the faculty and 44 percent of the staff also said their

performance on the job had been affected by uncomfortable conditions during the past year.

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations (See also Key Findings (See also Key Findings (See also Key Findings (See also Key Findings----5)5)5)5)

Provide individuals with enough local control over their environment that they can maintain the

standard level of comfort established by University policy. (Control might be through office

thermostats, University provided energy-efficient space heaters or fans, etc.)

Engage workplace members in planning and implementation activities as new policies are

enacted that impact comfort.

Key Findings – 8 Unclear or Lack of Information

Uncertainty about departmental preferences or guidelines re: turning off lights and computers

A significant number of faculty and staff members indicated they were unsure as to whether their

unit had preferences or guidelines about turning off lights and computers. Four in ten said they

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

67

10

were uncertain about guidelines for “turning off lights when leaving a room” and a third said

they were uncertain about what their unit preferred regarding shutting down computers at night.

The proportion who expressed uncertainty about turning out lights varied from 47 percent in

Space Research and 43 percent in ISR to 23 percent in Chemistry and 18 percent in Rackham.

Occupants in the four buildings also varied in what they believed their units preferred with

regard to turning off computers. About four in ten from ISR (43 percent) and from the

Chemistry department (38 percent) were unsure about computer guidelines compared to only 4

percent of the Rackham faculty and staff.

For faculty and staff who indicated they knew what their unit preferred, responses varied widely.

For instance, one quarter of the ISR staff and faculty thought that ISR wanted computers turned

off at the end of the day whereas 13 percent thought the policy was to leave them on. Another 20

percent said they thought the decision was up to each individual. Opinions about what was

preferred about computer use also differed among faculty and staff in AOSS and in the

Chemistry department. .

Confusion about departmental preferences was also expressed in focus group sessions. Some

staff members heard that leaving lights on used less energy than regularly turning them on and

off. Participants in two sessions reported that a light left on in their building was indicative of

people working even if not in the office. Similarly, staff members were often confused about

whether computers should be turned off during evening hours and on weekends.

Uncertainty about cost savings through energy conservation

All focus group participants expressed frustration that they did not have information about

energy conservation and dollars saved in the workplace. In contrast, participants noted that, at

home, their monthly utility bill was indicative of the amount of energy used. Many asked for

information about the financial savings associated with particular energy saving activities such as

turning off one computer for one night.

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

Working with plant department personnel and computer tech people, guidelines should be

developed within each unit on the operations of computer equipment among its faculty, staff and

students. Additionally, the university should establish policies and guidelines on the use of

building lighting. Once guidelines and policies are developed, they should be widely

disseminated to faculty, students and staff. Dissemination might be in the form of a manual sent

to each individual and postings (posters?) at strategic building locations.

The university should establish a committee to develop information covering dollar savings (or

costs) associated with specific energy-conserving (or energy-consuming) behaviors. For example,

by turning off overhead lights in a private office for a 12 hour period over a 5-day period would

save X kilowatt hours or Y dollars. Or X hours of operating a space heater uses Y kilowatt

hours and costs the university Z dollars.

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

68

11

Key Findings – 9

Remote Accessing Office Computers One third of the faculty in the four buildings and one in five staff members regularly access their

office computers from home or while traveling. Members of the research faculty are more likely

to regularly or occasionally engage in remote accessing than teaching faculty (60 percent versus

37 percent).

Slightly more than half of all faculty and staff said they never access their office computer when

off campus.

Of those who regularly use remote access, three-quarters never turn off their office computer and

9 percent said they always turn off the computer when leaving the office. A third of the faculty

and staff who occasionally use remote access said they never turn off their computer.

One in five faculty and staff members (19 percent) in the four buildings who never use remote

access also said they never turn off their computers.

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

Guidelines for turning on and off computers need to be developed and publicized. Specifically,

the question of whether office computers need to remain on in order to access files from a remote

location needs to be clarified. (Is it possible that one in 10 people who always use remote access

always turn off the office computer when leaving work at the end of the day?) . Guidelines and

policies should be established in each unit by a committee involving tech personnel, facility

managers, faculty representatives, and plant operations personnel.

Similarly, information needs to be developed about the costs associated with leaving computers

on overnight and conveyed to all staff and faculty. Particular attention should be directed to the

significant minority of staff and faculty (37 percent) who do not use remote access and never or

rarely turn off their office computers.

Key Findings – 10 Willingness to Accept Less Comfortable Temperatures A significant number of faculty members and staff are willing to accept less comfortable office

and building temperatures as a means of reducing energy use in their buildings.

When asked if they would accept less comfortable office temperatures under various scenarios,

the most positive response was associated with energy cost savings being returned to the unit (72

percent). About half would accept less comfortable temperatures if it resulted in reduced burning

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

69

12

of fossil fuels and if they received regular updates on energy savings. ). Just one quarter of

faculty and staff said they would accept less comfortable temperatures if they were recognized as

good university citizens.

Students were also amenable to less comfortable temperatures. When asked if they would accept

less comfortable classroom temperatures, two-thirds said they would do so if it resulted in

reduced burning of fossil fuels and nearly half (46 percent) said they would do so if they received

regular updates on energy savings. When asked if they would accept less comfortable classroom

temperatures if the savings in energy cost savings were returned to their department, half

responded affirmatively.

Students were most likely to say they would accept less comfortable classroom temperatures if

the savings resulted in a reduced tuition increases. Overall, 84 percent agreed with the statement

but undergrads at all levels were much more willing than graduate students to agree (89 percent

versus 59 percent).

The most positive faculty and staff responses on the burning less fossil fuels scenario came from

AOSS and the most positive response on the regular updates on savings scenario came from the

Rackham staff.

Nearly four in five faculty and staff (78 percent) and two-thirds of the students said they would

accept cooler building temperatures during the winter months requiring them to wear warmer

clothing and 90 percent of the faculty and staff said they would work in the building if the

evening temperatures were reduced. For students, 70 percent would study or work in buildings if

the evening temperatures were reduced.

Although most faculty and staff would accept warmer building temperatures during the summer

months requiring them to wear lighter clothing, the numbers were not as great as those willing to

accept cooler temperatures during the winter. Overall, seven in ten would be willing to accept

warmer summer time temperatures but nearly a third (31 percent) were not willing to deal with

warmer building temperatures.

Observations during the summer and early fall revealed that nearly half (43 percent) of the

faculty and staff were wearing sweaters or jackets. Heavy clothing was most prevalent in ISR

and Chemistry (57 percent and 55 percent respectively) least prevalent in Rackham and Space

Research (33 percent and 35 percent respectively)2. Heavy clothing was more likely to be worn

in fall suggesting that temperature settings were too low. Observing operating space heaters

during the summer and the survey data also support this premise. Nearly one in five space

heaters observed were operating (mostly in the fall). A third of the faculty and half of the staff

expressed dissatisfaction with environmental conditions in their building during the summer

months.

2 Indoor temperatures during the two observation periods averaged 74 degrees and outdoor temperatures averaged

78 degrees in the summer and 66 degrees during the fall.

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

70

13

RecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendationsRecommendations

Findings indicate that responses to constant room temperatures vary between people and between

buildings. Accordingly, efforts by facility personnel should be made to hear from building

occupants (in different parts of the same building) throughout the year as to whether

temperatures should be maintained or changed. Sentiments could be expressed through brief

surveys (paper and pencil or web), at staff meetings, or by inviting direct (email, personal)

communications. Appropriate adjustments should be made in response (in different parts of the

same building, if possible) to these sentiments.

In general, there is ample support for raising building temperatures during warm weather months,

particularly in early fall. Similarly, lower building temperatures during the winter months are

warranted with the proviso that feedback and/or incentives accompany this action. Feedback

could include information on reductions in CO2 emissions and/or dollar savings.

In support of modifying building temperatures, consideration should be given to developing

programs whereby dollar savings from reductions in energy use in a building can be passed on to

units occupying the building. An important aspect of the program should be communicating how

it operates and how it might be used by units (e.g. augmenting the unit’s merit increases and/or

travel funds, equipment purchases, etc.)

Appendix F: University of Michigan ISR findings

71

Before you leave for the Thanksgiving holiday break, be sure to:

Flip the switch – in your workspace, conference rooms, kitchens – everywhere!

Turn off your computer and unplug it and any other electronic devices (speakers, printers, copiers, chargers, etc.)

Unplug YOURSELF – Take time to relax with friends and family this weekend. Happy Thanksgiving!

Energywi$e UM Chesapeake Building Energy Report – Issued 11/23/09 Electricity Use Last Week (11/16 – 11/22):

Total Use for

Last Week

Difference from Previous Week

Change

from Previous Week

Performance

Last Week

Way to go, Chesapeake! Your electricity use decreased 491 kWh last week, a 2.5 % decrease from the

previous week. This week presents a great opportunity to reduce our use even further by

UNPLUGGING for the holiday!

lllll

Overview:

Feedback: Progress to date is 10 percent lower than the expected baseline. Keep up the good work! This week, make sure to UNPLUG FOR THE HOLIDAY and reduce your energy use even further!

Your Next Assignment: Unplug for the Holiday

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

kWh

Use

d*

* Electricity data are adjusted based on

average weekly outdoor temperature to

better reflect occupants’ energy usage.

Decreased

2.5%

491 kWh $58

781 lbs. CO2

19,105 kWh $2,274

30,377 lbs. CO2

Energywi$e UM – A partnership between the Office of Sustainability and Facilities Management Questions or suggestions? Contact the Chesapeake Energywi$e intern at jcalabre@umd.edu

Net Savings:

10,803 kWh $1,286

17,177 lbs. CO2

10.2% =

Progress since 10/19

Appendix G1: Dashboards from other universities

72

Dartmouth College Hanover, New Hampshire

Energy - GreenLite Dartmouth

SCHOOL Dartmouth College is a private, four-year liberal arts college. There are 4,150 undergraduates on campus.

The College is located in Hanover, New Hampshire.

ABSTRACT

The GreenLite Dartmouth initiative aims to educate students about conservation through real-time

feedback on energy usage via display kiosks in dormitory common spaces. The displays, broadcast on

low-energy monitors, show an animated polar bear at various levels of comfort or distress, depending on

the amount of energy being used in the building. The GreenLite team hopes that students will modify

their energy consumption when they can see its effects in real time. The project has displays in ten dorms

on campus. Initial tests showed as much as a 22 percent reduction in energy use, a savings made possible

by behavioral changes induced by the GreenLite system.

GOALS AND OUTCOMES

Goals

The primary goal of GreenLite Dartmouth is to educate students

on how much energy they use on a real-time basis. The

underlying premise of the initiative is that students will modify

their behavior toward less energy use if they can see how their

energy consumption fluctuates with each additional light

switched on or off, or each laptop or other appliance plugged in.

Initially we did not have a quantifiable goal because it was

difficult to predict the size of the system’s effect on behavior.

However, we do intend for the dorms enrolled in the program to

realize continued savings indefinitely into the future. The

constant presence of the animated polar bear, and students’

resulting emotional attachment to it, should promote sustained

conservation behavior rather than a short-lived effect prompted

by the attention surrounding the rollout of the system.

Accomplishments and Outcomes

Though the program is still in its nascent stages, GreenLite

Dartmouth already has achieved overwhelming success. The

display kiosks have been installed in six dorms to date, and

energy use is being electronically metered and recorded in four additional dorms in preparation for an

expansion of the system. In the dorms displaying the animation, students have incorporated their

emotional attachment to the wellbeing of the polar bear, and by extension, energy conservation, into their

Appendix G1: Dashboards from other universities

73

National Wildlife Federation • Campus Ecology • 2009 2

everyday lives. These dorms have achieved reductions in energy usage of up to 22 percent during initial

testing, and are expected to sustain similar conservation numbers going forward.

Challenges and Responses

Solving the technical complexity of our real-time energy feedback system was the greatest challenge to

our team. GreenLite Dartmouth team members within the computer science department worked tirelessly

to write and finesse new software that enabled consistent polling of installed energy meters at least once

every 15 seconds. These energy data were communicated from Dartmouth dormitories via a Modbus/TCP

protocol.

Challenging decisions about how to store and summarize the meter data on our servers had to be made.

This was critical to establish and update historical energy usage patterns, the foundation of our “mood

algorithm”. The algorithm drives the animated displays to project real-time information to students on

campus about current energy usage levels.

The GreenLite team surmounted the technical challenge through long hours in the computer lab, trial and

error, and cooperation. This sophisticated system came as a result of the team responding to these tough

problems with cogent technical solutions.

Campus Climate Action: Your School’s Carbon Footprint

The GreenLite Dartmouth project designed a functional campus-wide system aimed at reducing

greenhouse gas emissions on campus. Our theory was that we could positively affect energy consumption

behavior patterns by influencing students’ day-to-day routines associated with dormitory living. Data

from the pilot program initiated on campus supported our hypothesis. System-installed dorms on campus

experienced energy reduction rates as high as 22 percent.

The impact of the system heightened the greenhouse gas reduction sought with the campus’s attainment

of Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) certification for new residence halls. The

system added a human behavioral-based component to buildings featuring radiant heat and cooling

systems, polyurethane foam insulation, high-performance double-glazed windows, energy-efficient

lighting systems, and a heat recovery system using shower waste water.

Commentary and Reflection

Lorie Loeb, faculty advisor of GreenLite Dartmouth, notes, “We can build the most efficient building in

the world, but if people fill them with energy-hogging appliances or waste energy while living in the

building, the environment still loses. It is simple and easy to change our behavior in order to help save the

environment - sometimes all we need is some information and feedback to understand the results of each

action we take."

The innovative solution offered by GreenLite Dartmouth students proves we can make students, faculty,

and staff across a campus more aware of the impact of their real-time energy usage.

ENGAGEMENT AND SUPPORT

Leaders and Supporters

Lorie Loeb is co-director/founder of the Digital Arts Minor and Research Associate Professor in

the computer science department at Dartmouth College and the founder of the GreenLite Dartmouth

initiative. Her work tries to make complex ideas meaningful by making them simple, dynamic, visually

appealing and easy to understand. Loeb’s interests lie in the innovation and creativity that springs from

the overlap between technology, computer science, art, animation, teaching and activism.

Appendix G1: Dashboards from other universities

74

National Wildlife Federation • Campus Ecology • 2009 3

Funding and Resources

GreenLite Dartmouth received early backing from the offices of the Provost and the Dean of Faculty.

Additional support was received from the departments of computer science and sociology, and the offices

of residential life and facilities operations and management. Alumna Mary Finegan Dartmouth '86

donated to the project to fund its expansion into residence halls and Greek houses. The Neukon

Foundation, the Morgan Family Foundation and Jake Weinbaum provided critical financial support to the

work.

Education and Community Outreach

The launch of GreenLite Dartmouth energy feedback system was one component of the Dartmouth

Sustainability Initiative. Dartmouth Sustainability Manager Kathy Lambert coordinated an ongoing dialog

on campus that placed energy conservation at the forefront of conversation on with diverse audiences on

campus. GreenLite students helped support the Dartmouth Energy Campaign with goals to: (1) reduce

annual electricity consumption on campus by 5 percent to 10 percent; (2) cut annual greenhouse gas

emissions by 3 percent to 5 percent, and; (3) collect 2,000 individual energy pledges.

Away from the Dartmouth campus, the system developed by GreenLite was installed at Brooks School, a

boarding school in North Andover, Massachusetts. The system became the cornerstone of the school’s

sustainability initiative with energy conservation results mirroring those seen on the college campus.

National Wildlife Federation’s Campus Ecology Program

We used the following Campus Ecology resources as references: the online Case Study Database,

ClimateEdu, Campus Environment 2008, and the Campus Ecology Blog.

CONTACT INFORMATION

Contacts

Lorie Loeb, Research Associate Professor, Computer Science Department, Digital Art Minor, Dartmouth

College, lorie.loeb@dartmouth.edu

Case study submitted by: Lorie Loeb, Research Associate Professor, Computer Science Department, Digital Art Minor, Dartmouth

College, lorie.loeb@dartmouth.edu

MORE ABOUT YOUR SCHOOL

Campus Sustainability History

Dartmouth College supports numerous innovative sustainability programs on campus. For additional

information, please visit the College’s sustainability website. Web address:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~sustain/

Appendix G1: Dashboards from other universities

75

Appendix G2: Samples of other university materials

76

Appendix G2: Samples of other university materials

77

Appendix G2: Samples of other university materials

78

Appendix H: Behavior change theory

Behavior Change Theories

Social Cognitive Theory

The Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) describes the interconnectedness of behavior and environment. Refers to as reciprocal determinism, it suggests that the personal characteristics of an individual (e.g. energy conservation knowledge, attitudes and abilities) social environment (e.g. social influence and energy conservation social norms) and physical environment (e.g. energy conservation technology) significantly impact the adoption and maintenance of new behaviors, including electricity reduction behaviors.

Diffusion of Innovations

The Diffusion of Innovations (DOI) provides a model for understanding the factors that influence the speed and success of a target audience’s adoption of a new idea or behavior. Critical factors include:

• Characteristics of potential adopters

• Rate of adoption

• Nature of social system

• Characteristics of innovation

• Characteristics of change agent

Social Marketing Theory

Effective social marketing is measured by a balanced matrix of four key elements: product, price, promotion and placement. Referred to as the “four P’s of social marketing” this matrix outlines the manner in which social

79

Appendix H: Behavior change theory

goods – including socially responsible behaviors- can be strategically marketed.

• Product: non-tangible goods, services or rewards • Price: real or perceived costs (e.g. financial, social, opportunity costs) • Promotion: promotional methods (e.g. media, sponsorship, events participation) • Placement: utilizing high points of access for target audience • Policy: environmental and institutional changes

Communications Behavior Change

Based on public information campaign research, the Communications Behavior Change (CBC) theory illustrates the relationship between communication inputs, outputs and behavior adoption. According to the CBC model, the messenger, message and communication channels (inputs) impact the delivery, perception of – and reception to- a behavior change communication (outputs), which in turn impacts the adoption of new behaviors. A coordinated effort to promote electricity conservation – in order to be effective- must therefore consider how the desired behavior change is communicated and received.

80

Chief Energy Officer

Team Lead Team LeadMarketing

Communications Specialist

Building Influencers

Building Team for Pilot Buildings

Building Manager

Research Rep

Student Groups Reps

Facilities Services

IT Rep

Occupant Controlled Energy Reduction Initiative Proposed Program Office Structure – Pilot Phase

+

Note: Represents working relationship not reporting relationship

Appendix I: Organizational chart and job descriptions

81

Chief Energy Officer (Dedicated FTE):

- Appointed by and reports directly to the cabinet - Responsible for creating and evangelizing a compelling vision for energy conservation on campus - Responsible for promoting a culture of energy conservation at the grass roots by meeting campus community for tea (green) to discuss

ideas for sustainability - Responsible for strategically operationalizing UC system-wide energy policy by creating a Strategic Energy/Climate Action Plan - Responsible for managing/directing a team of subject matter experts towards the end goal of institutionalizing green behavior/practices - Responsible for submitting reports on the state of sustainability at Cal to the campus community - Responsible for working with Budget Office to create savings reports for leadership in buildings

Team Leads (Dedicated FTE)

- Work to coordinate activities in the building (need communication & relationship building skills) - Solicit support from building leadership & build relationships with leadership - Recruit building team members - Lead building assessment and pull in campus experts as needed - Work with building team & marketing/communications specialist to create materials for building kick-off event - Coordinate reporting and student monitoring effort

Marketing/communications Specialist (Dedicated FTE)

- Responsible for creating the brand with the help of a marketing agency - Responsible for working with subject matter experts and create all content (online/published) for the initiative - Responsible for managing the brand - Responsible for creating a coherent message with help of social media tools - Responsible for organizing the Cal online community with the help of social media tools - Responsible for creating customizable templates and reusable content

Appendix I: Organizational chart and job descriptions

82

Chief Energy Officer

Coordinator -Green IT

Coordinator -Green Research

Coordinator -Green Purchasing

Coordinator -Green Buildings

Building Managers

(1)

Student Outreach Coordinator

Student Groups

(1 Sr. Rep + 2 Jr. Reps)

Marketing Communications

Specialist

Occupant Controlled Energy Reduction Initiative Proposed Program Office Structure - Aspirational

Denotes working relationship

Appendix J: Organizational chart and job descriptions (aspirational)

83

Chief Energy Officer (Dedicated FTE):

- Appointed by and reports directly to the cabinet - Responsible for creating and evangelizing a compelling vision for energy conservation on campus - Responsible for promoting a culture of energy conservation at the grass roots by meeting campus community for tea (green) to discuss

ideas for sustainability - Responsible for strategically operationalizing UC system-wide energy policy by creating a Strategic Energy/Climate Action Plan - Responsible for managing/directing a team of subject matter experts towards the end goal of institutionalizing green behavior/practices - Responsible for submitting reports on the state of sustainability at Cal to the campus community - Responsible for working with Budget Office to create savings reports for leadership in buildings

Director – Green IT (Shared FTE)

- Appointed by the AVC – IT from an applicant pool - Responsible for creating a culture of sustainable IT at Cal by:

o Advocating for green IT practices across campus o Coordinating/conducting town halls featuring IT managers and IT staff from across campus o Working with marketing/communications specialist to create marketing material (wallpapers, posters, mouse pads) promoting

“Green Computing” o Working with IT staff in building to create a strategy for green IT in the building o Creating incentives for green IT among building occupants

- Reports to the CEO on the latest in green IT

Director – Green Research (Shared FTE)

- Appointed by VC Research from an applicant pool - Responsible for creating a culture sustainable research at Cal by:

o Advocating for green research practices on the Berkeley o Working with marketing/communications specialist to communicate the social and financial benefits of green research o Promote green innovation on campus o Working with student/outreach coordinator to identify student projects for green grants

Appendix J: Organizational chart and job descriptions (aspirational)

84

Director – Green Purchasing (Shared FTE)

- Appointed by VC Administration from an applicant pool - Responsible for working directly with strategic procurement to promote a culture of green purchasing on campus - Responsible for working directly with strategic procurement and campus vendors to identify long term savings from green purchases - Responsible for working directly with faculty and research staff to identify and advocate long term savings and end benefits for the

campus - Responsible for communicating the social/financial benefits of green purchasing to decision makers on the entire campus - Responsible for working with marketing/communication specialist to create content for:

o Employee Handbook o Blu

- Responsible for reporting savings from green purchases to CEO

Director – Green Buildings (Dedicated FTE)

- Appointed by VC Capital Projects - Responsible for implementing SEP - Responsible for infrastructure upgrades in buildings - Responsible for coordinating a network of building managers to create a culture of green building practices by engaging staff at all levels

– janitorial and professional - Responsible for reporting savings from infrastructure upgrades

Student Outreach Coordinator (Dedicated FTE)

- Responsible for organizing CAL student/student groups around the cause of sustainability; converting the passion and the ad hoc efforts of the Cal student body into a strategically directed program

- Responsible for administering the Cal Green Bear Program o A graduating tier program where Cal student earn points for advocacy o Earning points graduates the student to the next level, which carries more responsibility for recruiting other students o Green Bears work with building managers and staff to reduce occupant controlled electricity consumption o Conduct energy audits o Train building staff on green practices o Train and engage janitorial staff around green practices

Appendix J: Organizational chart and job descriptions (aspirational)

85

- Work with students on effective/pragmatic strategies to engage faculty

Marketing/communications Specialist

- Responsible for creating the “Sustainable Cal” brand with the help of a marketing agency - Responsible for working with subject matter experts and create all content (online/published) for the initiative - Responsible for managing the “Sustainable Cal” brand - Responsible for creating a coherent message with help of social media tools - Responsible for organizing the Cal online community with the help of social media tools - Responsible for creating customizable templates and reusable content

Appendix J: Organizational chart and job descriptions (aspirational)

86