1

National Energy Trends:How do YOU Measure Success

Presented by:Jeff Murphy, Manager of Go‐Green ServicesSightlines, LLC

University of HartfordUniversity of Idaho

University of Illinois at ChicagoUniversity of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign

The University of MaineUniversity of Maine at Augusta

University of Maine at FarmingtonUniversity of Maine at Machias

University of Maine at Presque IsleUniversity of Maine at Fort Kent

University of MarylandUniversity of Massachusetts Amherst

University of Massachusetts DartmouthUniversity of Massachusetts Lowell

University of MichiganUniversity of Minnesota

University of Mississippi Medical CenterUniversity of Missouri

University of Missouri ‐ Kansas CityUniversity of Missouri ‐ St. Louis

University of New HampshireUniversity of New HavenUniversity of North TexasUniversity of Notre Dame

University of OregonUniversity of Pennsylvania

University of PortlandUniversity of Redlands

The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett BayThe University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence

The University of Rhode Island, KingstonUniversity of RochesterUniversity of San Diego

University of San FranciscoUniversity of St. Thomas (TX)University of Southern Maine

University of Southern MississippiUniversity of the Pacific

University of the Sciences in PhiladelphiaUniversity of VermontUpper Iowa University

Utica CollegeVirginia Commonwealth University

Virginia Department of General ServicesWashburn University

2

Sightlines Profile – who we are and what we doWorking with 231 institutions in 36 states; analyzing over 835 million GSF annually

Represents State System

Represents Flagship Institutions

Analysis based on:• Common Vocabulary• Consistent Methodology• Context Through Benchmarking 2

3

Agenda

1. Why energy?

2. How are you measuring your success?

3. How do we measure your success – a family of metrics

4. National trends across these metrics

5. Who is leading the pack and how are they doing it?

3

4

Energy as the institutional intersection

Energy Use

Building Operations

Program Demands

Campus Sustainability

Capital Investment

Operating Budget

Occupant Engagement

5

Scope 1 –Direct GHGs

•On-Campus Stationary (Fossil Fuels & Biomass)

•Vehicle Fleet

•Agriculture

•Refrigerants

Scope 2 –Upstream GHGs

•Purchased Electricity

•Purchased Steam

•Purchased Chilled Water

Scope 3 –Indirect GHGs

•Employee/ Student Commuting

•Directly Financed Air Travel

•Study Abroad Travel

•Ground Travel

•Solid Waste

•Wastewater

•Paper

•Transmission & Distribution Losses

60‐80% of a “typical” campus’ GHGs are from energy

Campus GHG sourcesEffective energy management is critical to sustainable campus operations

5

6

Traditional ways of measuring success on energyNo single metric can tell the entire story of campus energy management

6

HDD/CDD

7

Evaluating comprehensive successIdentifying a family of metrics

Total MMBTU 

•Risk Exposure•Resiliency•Cost Savings•Social/Enviro. Benefits

BTU/GSF

•Operational Efficiency

BTU/Student

•Efficient Space Utilization

7

8

National trends in higher educationHow do each of these trends impact  our family of energy metrics?

0.0%

0.2%

0.4%

0.6%

0.8%

1.0%

1.2%

1.4%

1.6%

1.8%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Annual Growth in GSF

2.88

2.89

2.90

2.91

2.92

2.93

2.94

2.95

2.96

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Increasing Building Complexity

395

400

405

410

415

420

425

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Increasing Density Factor

Users/ 1

00K GSF

Tech Rating (1‐5)

8

Drives BTU

s Higher 

Drives 

BTU/G

SF Higher Pu

shes 

BTU/FTE

 Lower

9

Gross energy useThe most challenging energy metric to reduce

35%

19%

46%

Total MMBTU Energy Consumption

Decreasing Flat Increasing

*Decreasing is ‐3% or less since FY2006; Flat is ‐2% to +2% since FY2006; Increasing is +3% or more since FY2006

Total MMBTU

Institution Count: 82Average: 12% decreaseMedian: 9% decreaseRange: 3% ‐ 51% decreaseAverage Energy Savings Since 2006:

$2.62M

Institution Count: 106Average: 15% increaseMedian: 12% increaseRange: 3% ‐ 75% increaseAverage Additional Cost Since 2006:

$5.48M9

Database Average: +3% since 2006

10

Operational efficiencyThe traditional benchmark of success

51%

18%

31%

Total BTU/GSF Energy Consumption

Decreasing Flat Increasing

*Decreasing is ‐3% or less since FY2006; Flat is ‐2% to +2% since FY2006; Increasing is +3% or more since FY2006

BTU/GSF

Institution Count: 117Average: 13% decreaseMedian: 10% decreaseRange: 3% ‐ 46% decreaseAverage Energy Savings Since 2006:

$4.12M

Institution Count: 71Average: 12% increaseMedian: 9% increaseRange: 3% ‐ 41% increaseAverage Additional Costs Since 2006:

$3.59M10

Database Average: ‐3% since 2006

11

Efficient space utilizationAdding students won’t necessarily lead to higher energy usage

57%

13%

30%

Total BTU/Student Energy Consumption

Decreasing Flat Increasing

*Decreasing is ‐3% or less since FY2006; Flat is ‐2% to +2% since FY2006; Increasing is +3% or more since FY2006

BTU/Student

Institution Count: 131Average: 16% decreaseMedian: 14% decreaseRange: 3% ‐ 53% decreaseAverage Energy Savings Since 2006:

$5.73M

Institution Count: 69Average: 14% increaseMedian: 11% increaseRange: 3% ‐ 65% increaseAverage Additional Costs: Since 2006

$1.08M11

Database Average: ‐5% since 2006

12

The “Triple Crown” in energy reductionsSubstantial portion of our database is reducing in all three categories

30%

15%24%

31%

Database Achievement in Energy Metrics

Decreasing in All 3 Decreasing in 2Decreasing in 1 Decreasing in 0

Institution Count: 69“The Reducers”

12Found 4 overlapping schools

“Elite Reducers”Found 4 overlapping schools

“Elite Reducers”

Identified  the top 10 in each category

13

Profiling the “Reducers”

14

Where are these “Reducer” institutions located?“Reducers” are geographically diverse

“The Reducers” “The Elite Reducers” States w/o Sightlines Members

15

What type of institution are these “Reducers”

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Private Public

“Reducers” by Type of Institution

“Elite Reducer” Institution

16

How heavily utilized are the “Reducers” buildings?“Reducers” building utilizations are quite diverse

Sightline

s Distribution

Database Distribution: Density Factor

21 36 3 9

“Elite Reducer” Institution

Users/100K GSF

17

What size are these “Reducer” institutions?“Reducers” group diverse in institution size: 49K – 23M GSF 

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Under 1M GSF 1 ‐ 2M GSF 2 ‐ 5M GSF Over 5M GSF

“Reducers” by Size Category

“Elite Reducer” Institution

18

Campus expansion impedes gross energy reductionsLimiting campus expansion is critical to reducing energy usage

‐20%

‐15%

‐10%

‐5%

0%

5%

10%

Campus Expansion vs. Energy Reductions

Campus Expansion by Size Category

Energy Reductions by Size Category

Under 1M GSF 1 ‐ 2M GSF 2 ‐ 5M GSF Over 5M GSF

% Cha

nge Since 2006

19

Profiling the “Elite Reducers”

20

Elite Reducers: Cheyney University of Pennsylvania1M GSF, declined 9% since FY06

0

200

400

600

800

1,000

1,200

020406080100120140160180

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MMBT

Us in Tho

usan

ds

Gross Energy Use and Cost

Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF

Since 2006:51% Reduction in Gross Energy UseAvoided $1.7M in Energy Costs

Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution

2006 2006 2011 

Datab

ase Av

erage

Campus G

SF in Thousands

Keys to Success•Centralized  Decentralized

•ESCo Partnership

•Envelope Upgrades

•Variable Speed Drives/ Variable Air Volumes

•New Energy Management System

21

Elite Reducers: Olin College located in New England400K GSF and flat since FY06, but increased campus population by 26%

050100150200250300350400450

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MMBT

Us in Tho

usan

ds

Gross Energy Use and Cost

Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF

Since 2006:42% Reduction in Gross Energy UseAvoided $2.2M in Energy Costs

Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution

2011 

Datab

ase Av

erage

Campus G

SF in Thousands

2006 2006 

Keys to Success•Variable Speed Drives

•Autoflame Technology

•Occupancy Sensors

•Occupant Engagement

22

Elite Reducer: Delta State University located in MS1.7M GSF with some fluctuation since FY07

02004006008001,0001,2001,4001,6001,800

0

50

100

150

200

250

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MMBT

Us in Tho

usan

ds

Gross Energy Use and Cost

Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF

Since 2007:39% Reduction in Gross Energy UseAvoided $3.3M in Energy Costs

Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution

2011 

Datab

ase Av

erage

Campus G

SF in Thousands

2007 

Keys to Success•Infrastructure Replacement

•Envelope Upgrades

•Lighting Upgrades

•Set Backs/ Shut Downs

•Space Management

23

Elite Reducer: Cape Cod Community College in MA340K GSF and flat since FY07, but increased student population by 7% 

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

MMBT

Us in Tho

usan

ds

Gross Energy Use and Cost

Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF

Since 2007:25% Reduction in Gross Energy UseAvoided $2.9M in Energy Costs

Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution

2011 Datab

ase Av

erage

Campus G

SF in Thousands

2007 

Keys to Success•Heat Pumps

•Lighting Upgrades – Interior/Exterior

•Occupancy Sensors

•Shut Downs

•Removal of Vestibule Heaters

24

What’s the common thread – physical profile?All of these institutions have limited their growth in campus GSF

Tech Rating – Database Distribution

Density Factor– Database Distribution

Cheyney Olin Delta State Cape Cod

% of GSF Over 25 Yrs – Database Distribution

25

What’s the common thread – project spending?High capital spend is not a pre‐requisite for success

Cheyney Olin Delta State Cape Cod

0.41

1.61

2.81

4.01

5.21

6.41

7.62

8.82

10.02

11.22

12.42

13.62

14.83

16.03

17.23

Project Spending – Database Distribution

$/GSF

26

What’s the common thread – project selection?Elite Reducers are prioritizing investments into building systems and envelopes

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Capital Project Selection

Envelope/Mechanical/Utility Infra. Space Renewal and Programming Updates

Database Average

27

What is the common thread – people & process?Elite Reducers creating  culture of energy management supported by policy

LEED‐NC & LEED‐EBOM X XESCo Partnership X X

Energy Management Staff X X X

Policy Incentives X X X

27

28

National Energy Trends – key takeaways

You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Measure – Comprehensively:•Track and evaluate energy progress through a family of metrics to identify and execute all opportunities

Keep Up With The Jones – You Can Do It:•Nearly 70 schools are reducing across all 3 energy metrics•Success is occurring at all types of institutions all across the country

No Silver Bullet – Substantial Capital Not Always Required:•Success does require management for change:

•Fact‐based targets•Buy‐in and process•Clear policy incentives

28

29

Questions & Discussion

For More Info Contact Us:Jeff Murphy, Manager of Go‐Green Services

Phone: 845‐790‐9244Email: jmurphy@sightlines.com

29