As the third largest city in the State, the University will have a significant impact as a leader and showcase for environmental sustainability.

Transcription

1

2 Table of Contents Introduction 2 University of Maryland Sustainability Progress Summary Campus Sustainability Performance Compass 4 Sustainability Education Co-Curricular Education Assessment 5 First Year Sustainability Education 5 Chesapeake Project Impact and Participation 6 Sustainable Behaviors on Campus Recycling Rate 7 Solid Waste Generation 8 Composted Food Waste 9 Green Office Participation and Recycling 9 Resource Conservation Greenhouse Gas Emissions 1 Steam Production 15 Electricity Consumption 16 Energy Performance Contract 17 Facilities Management (FM) Energy Conservation Projects 18 Renewable Energy Generation 19 Water Consumption 2 Sustainable Transportation Commuter Parking Permit Purchases 21 Campus Vehicle Fleet Fuel Use 22 Air Travel 23 Shuttle-UM Ridership 24 Registered Bikes on Campus 24 Green Procurement Office Paper Purchasing 25 Green Cleaning 26 Sustainable Food in Dining Halls 27 Community Involvement Students Living On and Near Campus 28 Community Education and Outreach Programs 29 Food Recovery Network 3 Acknowledgements 31 1

3 Introduction As the third largest city in the State, the University will have a significant impact as a leader and showcase for environmental sustainability. -Excerpt from the 28 UMD Strategic Plan Every year, the University of Maryland works toward reducing its environmental footprint and augmenting its positive social impacts. The Office of Sustainability (OS) publishes this report to highlight progress, celebrate achievements and support the campus community by focusing on areas where improvement is needed. This year, OS has taken beginning steps to consolidate and strengthen its annual sustainability reporting by developing a new framework that is flexible enough to highlight different programs every year while consistently tracking big picture changes at the whole campus level. Whereas the Campus Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report and Campus Sustainability Metrics Report were separate publications in previous years, this Sustainability Progress Report attempts to merge those reports into one easy-to-read document that provides a more holistic view of the university s progress toward sustainability. This report is organized into six sections (described below), each with system indicators that show changes on a campus-wide level and program indicators that highlight specific programs designed to influence campus performance. Report Section Description Symbol Indicators characterize performance on integrating sustainability Sustainability Education concepts into UMD s curriculum and co-curriculum. Sustainable Behaviors Resource Conservation Sustainable Transportation Green Procurement Community Involvement Indicators characterize performance by the campus community on recycling, composting and other regular behaviors that indicate people are actively choosing to participate in campus sustainability. Indicators characterize performance on reducing climate-related pollution and use of non-renewable natural resources to meet campus energy and water demands. Indicators characterize performance by the campus community on incorporating forms of alternative transportation into commuting behavior, and performance by departments on reducing climate-related pollution from fuel for air travel and UMD owned vehicles. Indicators characterize performance by campus departments on incorporating environmental and social performance into their purchasing decisions. Indicators characterize performance on engagement, outreach and service to off-campus communities. Indicators in this section are still very limited in scope but paint a picture of UMD s positioning for community invovlement. 2

4 University of Maryland Sustainability Progress Summary The following table presents a snapshot of the indicators included in this report. The column farthest to the right provides a quick view of how each indicator has trended over the past three years where Green = progressing toward sustainability, Yellow = no significant progress, and Red = trending in the wrong direction. 3 Indicator Units Yr. Trend SUSTAINABILITY EDUCATION Co-Curricular Education Assessment percent N/A N/A 73 First Year Sustainability Education percent 17% 22% 43% Chesapeake Project Participation count SUSTAINABLE BEHAVIORS Recycling Rate percent 57% 63% 64% Solid Waste Generation tons 12,95 14,229 12,86 Composted Food Waste tons Green Office Participation count N/A N/A 83 RESOURCE CONSERVATION Net Greenhouse Gas Emissions MT-CO 2 e 268, , ,357 Greenhouse Gas Emissions per MT-CO 2 e / Capita FTE person Greenhouse Gas Emissions per Area kg-co 2 /sq. ft Steam Production per Area klbs/sq. ft Electricity Consumption per Area kwh/sq. ft FM Energy Conservation Projects MWh savings 92 3,277 4,565 Renewable Energy Generation MWh 4.6 1,61.7 Water Consumption per Area kgal/sq. ft SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION Student Commuter Parking Permits percent 33.6% 29.8% 24.3% Faculty and Staff Parking Permits percent 78.2% 85.9% 71.9% Campus Vehicle Fleet Fuel Use MT-CO2e 6,77 6,813 6,86 Air Travel MT-CO2e 32,17 36,678 44,71 Shuttle-UM Ridership # of rides 2,627,29 2,686,717 2,967,164 Registered Bikes on Campus count GREEN PROCUREMENT Office Paper Purchasing reams 148, , ,448 Green Cleaning percent see report Sustainable Food in Dining Halls percent 11% 11% 1% COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT Students Living on or near Campus percent 38% 44% 46% Community Education Programs count Food Recovery Network meals served N/A 5, 3,

5 212 Campus Sustainability Performance Compass In a sense, this report is representative of a sustainability compass because it reflects UMD s path in six performance areas, each of which are overlapping parts of the journey to become a university that embodies true sustainability. The graphic below organizes each of the colors from the previous table into a compass to make it easy to see where the university is performing well and where more attention may be needed. The large circle in the middle of the compass summarizes all the indicators together, whereas each point of the compass summarizes the indicators in each section of this report. Large wedges of each circle illustrate system indicators while smaller wedges illustrate program indicators. 4

6 Sustainability Education System Indicator: Co-Curricular Education Assessment UMD s performance on a national sustainability rating system for co-curricular education Description: This indicator looks at how UMD s sustainability-related co-curricular programs measure up to the Co-Curricular Education section of the Sustainability, Tracking, Assessment, and Rating System (STARS) created by the Association for Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE). The STARS assessment includes credits for impact of the student sustainability educators program, presence of student sustainability outreach campaigns, sustainability in new student orientation, sustainability materials and publications, student groups, organic gardens, themed housing, student-run sustainable businesses, sustainability events, and outdoors programs. Performance Summary: UMD scores 73 percent of the points available in STARS for co-curricular education. This is close to the average score reported by other institutions of UMD s size. Prognosis for Improvement: The Student Sustainability Advisors Program continues to grow (see below) and thus performance on this indicator will continue to improve gradually. In order to significantly improve UMD s STARS rating in this category, UMD would need to develop a peer-to-peer sustainability education and outreach program with formal training for student peer advisors that aims to reach upperclassmen or graduate students; however, this is not a current priority. Program Indicator: First Year Sustainability Education Percentage of incoming freshmen who receive a sustainability lesson from a peer educator 1% 8% 6% 4% 2% % Percentage of First Year Students Who Receive a Peer-Educator Sustainability Lesson 1% 17% 22% 43% Academic Year Description: This indicator looks at the Student Sustainability Advisors Program, through which a 6-minute introductory sustainability presentation is given by trained Student Sustainability Advisors in some first year seminar courses. Each year the Office of Sustainability trains a group of upperclassmen, Student Sustainability Advisors, to deliver the presentation to first year students. Performance Summary: In 211, 43 percent of first year students (approximately 15) were educated about sustainability by a trained Student Sustainability Advisor. The program has been steadily expanding each year since it was launched. 5

7 Program Indicator: Chesapeake Project Impact and Participation a) Number of courses revised to include sustainability concepts b) Number of faculty who have completed the university s training on curriculum and sustainability Number of Courses Revised to Include Sustainability FY 29 FY 21 FY 211 FY Number of Faculty Participants FY 29 FY 21 FY 211 FY 212 Trained in Previous Years Trained in Year Shown Description: These indicators looks at The Chesapeake Project Program, through which interested faculty complete a two-day workshop and revise at least one of their courses for the following year to include a component on sustainability. The program is supported by the deans of all twelve colleges, and presented by faculty from the department of Environmental Science and Policy and the Smith School of Business in collaboration with staff from Office of Sustainability. Performance Summary: In May 212, 27 faculty members completed the Chesapeake Project workshop. As of the end of the academic year, 111 courses had been revised through the program to include sustainability components. The campus network of Chesapeake Project Faculty Fellows (as workshop graduates are called) has expanded steadily since the program began in 29 and has now reached 98 members. 6

8 Sustainable Behaviors on Campus System Indicator: Recycling Rate Percentage of the campus waste stream that is diverted from landfills through collection of compostable and other recyclable material 1% Campus Recycling Rate 8% 6% 46% 55% 46% 57% 63% 64% 4% 2% 2% 18% 22% 25% % Description: This indicator looks at progress toward UMD s waste diversion goals that were adopted in the 29 Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP set a target to divert 75 percent of campus-generated solid waste from municipal landfills by 213. Measurements include all non-hazardous solid waste generated on the College Park campus. Performance Summary: UMD diverted 64.3 percent of solid waste in 211. Since 23, participation in recycling has increased significantly as shown by the campus wide recycling rate which has steadily grown from 17.7 percent to almost 65 percent. Progress on recycling has been facilitated by several waste minimization programs, including Can the Can and single-stream recycling run by Facilities Management, and expanding emphasis on collecting post-consumer food waste for compost by Dining Services. Prognosis for Improvement: The campus is on track to meet waste diversion goals on time. However, participation from all students, faculty and staff is needed in order to sustain positive trends in the area of recycling. Facilities Management and the Office of Sustainability have been working closely with departments around campus to increase opportunities to divert compostable waste like food scraps and used paper towels, as much construction waste as possible, and other portions of the waste stream that aren t captured through the blue single-stream recycling collection containers. In summer 212, Campus Projects adopted recommendations from OS to increase recycling of construction & demolition waste from building renovations. 7

9 Tons/FTE Tons System Indicator: Solid Waste Generation a) Tons of non-hazardous solid waste collected and hauled to landfills and recycling facilities b) Tons of solid waste generated per person on campus in full-time equivalents (FTE) 15, Non-Hazardous Solid Waste 1, 5, Recycled Waste Landfilled Waste.4 Solid Waste Generated per Person Description: This indicator looks at changes in the amount of trash generated by the campus community from year to year. It includes all non-hazardous waste generated on the College Park campus. Performance Summary: The total amount of solid waste decreased by 1 percent between 21 and 211. Between 28 and 21, solid waste was steadily increasing so the decrease this year is a change for the better. In 211, the campus generated approximately 2 percent less waste than in 27, despite the addition of 2,177 more people (FTEs) to the campus community. Participation in recycling has improved markedly, which has resulted in a 5 percent decrease in waste sent to landfills since 25. Waste generated per person also decreased 12 percent between 21 and 211 from.34 tons to.3 tons. 8

10 Tons Program Indicator: Composted Food Waste Tons of pre and post-consumer compostable food waste collected on campus Description: This indicator looks at the growing UMD tradition of recycling organic waste from dining and food service operations to assess participation by people (mainly students) who eat in the dining halls. Since composting organic waste is a way to cycle carbon back into healthy soil, it actually subtracts from UMD s solid waste greenhouse gas emissions and also reduces other types of pollutants associated with landfills. Performance Summary: Between 21 and 211, total composted food waste grew significantly, increasing over 2%. The increase resulted from a number of factors including: new signage and increased education about composting, a continually improving collection process, and Dining Services' decision to purchase three oncampus compost compactors. The campus also experienced disruptions with its contracted compost hauler in 29 and 21, so Facilities Management assumed responsibility for hauling in 211. The reliability of in-house hauling helped bolster rates last year. Program Indicator: Green Office Participation and Recycling 33 Composted Food Waste 182 a) Number of offices working toward Green Office Certification b) Number of Bronze Certified Offices c) Percent of Certified Bronze Green Offices that participate in the Can the Can Program d) Percent of Certified Bronze Green Offices that recycle printer cartridges & batteries Description: This set of indicators looks at the Green Office (GO) Program, through which interested staff, faculty and students work toward three levels of certification (Bronze, Silver, Gold) to reduce the environmental impacts of their workplaces. This was the program s inaugural year and participating offices worked on the Bronze checklist. In August 212, the Office of Sustainability released the Silver checklist so that offices who have completed Bronze Certification can work toward the next level of certification. Performance Summary: As of August 212, there are 83 offices working toward GO Certification and 17 offices have achieved the Bronze certification level. Of the certified offices, 65 percent encourage employees to reduce waste by participating in Can the Can and 1 percent reduce waste by recycling printer cartridges and batteries. Participation in Can the Can is expected to increase once Facilities Management has completed launching the program in more buildings around campus. 9

11 MT-CO2e kg-co2e Total Emissions (MT-CO2e) Resource Conservation System Indicator: Greenhouse Gas Emissions a) Net Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions in Metric Tons of CO 2 equivalent (MT-CO 2 e) b) Net GHG Emissions per Person in full-time equivalents (FTE) c) Net GHG Emissions per Area in gross square feet (GSF) 35, 3, University GHG Emissions by Source Without students purchase of RECs in 21 With students purchase of RECs in 21 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Fiscal Year (25-28) and (29-211) Purchased Electricity Air Travel Commuting Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture Solid Waste UMD Fleet On-Campus Stationary Energy GHG Emissions per Capita Fiscal Year (25-28) and (29-211) GHG Emissions per Sq. Ft Fiscal Year (25-28) and (29-211) Description: These indicators look at GHG emissions from fuel used for heating, cooling, cooking, electric power, and transportation, as well as from decomposition of landfilled solid waste, fertilizer usage, farm animals, and releases of refrigerants from air-conditioning equipment. It also includes GHG emission offsets and reductions from composting, sequestration by trees on campus, and the purchase of Renewable Energy Certificates (RECs). The Climate Action Plan (CAP) lays out goals for reducing the campus carbon footprint to zero by 25 and strategies for meeting these goals. The first interim target is a 15 percent reduction over 25 GHG emission levels by 212 (See Table 1 on the next page for all targets). 1

12 Table 1: University of Maryland Climate Action Plan Targets (Net Emissions Targets derived from 25 baseline emissions) Target Year Reduction Goal Net Emissions Target (MT-CO 2 e) % 276, % 243, % 162, % 13, % Performance Summary: In 211, the university s carbon footprint was 278,54 MT-CO 2 e, which is 14.4 percent below 25 levels, just slightly below the CAP reduction target set for 212. Although emissions have trended downward over the past six years, reported GHG emissions increased 17.4 percent between 21 and 211, largely because a student-driven Renewable Energy Certificate (REC) purchase expired at the end of If the 21 student-driven REC purchase is not accounted for, then total net GHG emissions increased 1.6 percent over this one-year period. Based on trends since the CAP was adopted in 29, the following progress is clear: Energy conservation strategies for reducing emissions from the on-campus combined heat and power plant (CHP) have resulted in a 6.1 percent decrease in CHP-driven emissions. Alternative transportation strategies for reducing reliance on single-occupancy commuter vehicles have successfully reduced commuting emissions by 27.4 percent since 28 (reliable emissions data for commuting is not available for 25). Recycling strategies for reducing emissions from solid waste decomposition have resulted in a 91.1 percent decrease in solid-waste emissions including an emission offset from composting. Recent data trends have also highlighted key areas where improvements need to be made to keep emissions reductions on track: On-campus and off-campus growth has recently resulted in an increased demand for purchased electricity. Emissions from air travel for UMD business and athletics (not including education abroad) has increased 35.6 percent since 25 Emissions from stationary fuels used for non-central-plant boilers and generators have increased 9.6 percent. 1 In spring 21, the Student Advisory Subcommittee to the University Sustainability Council recommended that approximately $1, in funds from the first year of the undergraduate Student Sustainability Fee be used to purchase RECs for the campus. As a result, UMD spent student fee money on 66, MWh of RECs that were generated by wind farms in the mid Atlantic region. 11

13 A full summary of emissions reduction progress by source compared to 25 levels is available in Tables 2-5 on page 13. A summary pie chart of emission sources for 211 is shown on the next page and a full break down of campus emissions by source since 25 is available in Tables 6-9 on page Greenhouse Gas Emissions Refrigerants, Agriculture, & Solid Waste 1.4% Air Travel 15.8% Commuting 12.4% Purchased Electricity 23.5% UMD Vehicle Fleet 2.4% On-Campus Stationary Energy 44.6% When campus growth is used to normalize changes in emissions, several performance observations emerge: Emissions per square foot decreased from 24.6 to 19.5 kg-co 2 e between 25 and 211 because the campus has improved overall energy efficiency of its facilities. Emissions per capita have decreased almost 21 percent since 25. However, between 21 and 211, emissions per capita increased slightly and emissions per square foot stayed constant (when the student-driven REC purchase is not factored in as a reduction to 21 emissions). This is largely because UMD acquired two energy-intensive buildings in 21: Severn and the Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology (IBBR). Prognosis for Improvement: UMD along with other University System of Maryland (USM) institutions are signatories of the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment. UMD has pledged to neutralize its carbon footprint by 25 and is committed to periodically updating the strategies in the CAP to ensure progress toward GHG reduction targets. The University Sustainability Council reviewed strategies in the CAP during the academic year and established a new Buildings and Energy Work Group to revisit power and operations strategies in the CAP and make needed adjustments. The Office of Sustainability will support the work group and all recommendations will be presented to the University Sustainability Council. USM has already executed three Power Purchase Agreements (PPAs) that will bring more renewable energy into UMD s purchased electricity portfolio and reduce associated GHG emissions. More on renewable energy generation is presented on page

14 Table 2: Total GHG Emissions Reductions below CAP Baseline Year Levels (25) Year Reduction (%) w/o RECs with RECs Table 3: Power and Operations Progress (percent change in GHGs since 25) On- Campus CHP Other Stationary Sources Purchased Electricity w/o RECs Purchased Electricity w/recs Totals (w/recs) % -2.7% -13.2% -2.7% % 12.% -18.8% -3.9% % 18.1% -11.5% -2.4% % 23.6% -32.% -12.7% % 56.5% -24.1% -69.8% -28.2% -1.4% % 9.6% -18.9% -19.7% -9.4% -9.1% Totals (w/o RECs) Table 4: Transportation Progress (percent change in GHGs since 25) Business /Athletics Air Travel Study Abroad Air Travel Faculty & Staff Commuting UMD Bus & Vehicle Fleet Student Commuting Totals % 9.7% -4.5% 2.7% 3.%.2% 27.8% 16.1% -13.8% 4.4% 1.1% -3.1% % 34.9% -36.2% 17.2% 15.2% -9.3% % 5.1% -47.9% 7.5% 12.% -17.9% % 88.% -52.3% 8.% 13.8% -14.9% % 51.4% -58.4% -4.2% 11.3% -12.3% Table 5: Other Progress (percent change in GHGs since 25) Agriculture & Landscaping Solid Waste Refrigerants & Chemicals Totals % -11.7% -32.2% -18.3% % -34.2% -67.4% -45.3% % -4.9% -5.% -39.6% % -79.6% -69.7% -66.2% % -84.8% -89.3% -77.9% % -91.1% -78.5% -8.6% 13

15 Table 6: Total University GHG Emissions (MT-CO 2 e) , , , , , , * 211 * 274, , , ,357 Table 7: GHG Emissions from Power & Operations (reported in MT-CO 2 e) On- Other Purchased Renewable Totals Campus CHP Stationary Sources Electricity Energy Certificates 24 12,325 5,55 82,33 27, ,536 4,267 81,362 29, ,855 4,152 7,65 23, ,171 4,777 66,55 21, ,134 5,4 72,1 24, ,983 5,276 55,32 182, ,998 6,676 61,754-37,192 15, ,971 8,133 65, ,442 In Table 6, upper numbers for 21 and 211 show emission totals without reductions from RECs and lower italicized numbers (*) show emission totals including reductions from purchase of RECs. Business /Athletics Air Travel Table 8: GHG Emissions from Transportation (reported in MT-CO 2 e) Study Abroad Air Travel Student Commuting Faculty & Staff Commuting UMD Bus & Vehicle Fleet Totals 24 25,195 5,776 38,839 18,81 5,69 93, ,162 6,577 41,41 18,92 5,988 97, ,937 7,215 39,54 18,573 6,167 97, ,357 7,636 35,74 18,891 6,59 94, ,744 8,874 26,437 21,199 6,897 88, ,237 9,87 21,582 19,451 6,78 79, ,311 12,366 19,758 19,542 6,813 82, ,113 9,958 17,226 17,34 6,665 85,32 Table 9: GHG Emissions from Other Categories (reported in MT-CO 2 e) Agriculture & Landscaping Solid Waste Refrigerants & Chemicals Compost Campus Forest Other Totals 24 1,937 9,411 3,194 14, ,932 8,251 8,438 18, ,21 7,285 5,725 15, , 5,429 2,755 1, ,15 4,877 4,217 11, ,47 1,686 2,553 6, ,959 1, , ,748 1,45 1, ,613 14

16 Lbs per sq. ft. per HDD klbs MLbs MLbs per Person System Indicator: Steam Production a) Million pounds (MLbs) of steam used by facilities on the College Park campus b) Steam consumption per capita c) Steam consumption per square foot of building space d) Steam consumption per square foot per Heating Degree Day (HDD) Total Steam Production 75, 7, 65, 6, 55, Steam Produced per Capita Weather Normalized Steam Production 6 Steam Produced per Square Foot Description: These indicators look at changes in the amount of steam produced in millions of pounds (MLbs) by the Combined Heat and Power Plant (CHP) on the College Park campus. The CHP burns natural gas to produce steam for heating (and in some cases cooling) campus buildings and a significant amount of the electricity consumed on the College Park campus. Steam production can be affected by campus growth and weather patterns particularly heating degree days (HDD) which correspond with the severity of the winter and how much energy is needed to keep buildings warm (Table 11 on page 17 shows recent numbers of HDD). Performance Summary: Although steam production rose less than one percent between 21 and 211, it has fallen more than 5 percent since 28 (before aggressive energy conservation strategies were launched under the Climate Action Plan). The 2.5 percent decrease in GHG emissions from the CHP coupled with a.3 percent increase in steam production since 27 indicates that the energy efficiency of the steam distribution system was improved through replacement of steam traps and other repairs. 15

17 MWh per sq. ft. per CDD KWh MWh kwh System Indicator: Electricity Consumption a) Megawatt hours (MWh) used by facilities on the College Park campus b) Electricity consumed per person c) Electricity consumed per square foot of building space d) Electricity consumption per square foot per Cooling Degree Day (CDD) Total Electricity Consumption 28, 27, 26, 25, 24, 23, Electricity Consumption per Capita Description: These indicators look at changes in the amount of electric power used in megawatt hours (MWh) and kilowatt hours (kwh) by the College Park campus from year to year. Electricity consumption can be affected by campus growth, weather patterns particularly cooling degree days (CDD) which shape the need for air conditioning in the summer, rising dependence on personal electronic devices such as smart phones and tablets, as well as other factors (Table 11 on the next page shows recent numbers of CDD). Renewable electricity that is produced and consumed on-campus currently makes up less than one percent of electricity consumption and is not accounted for in this metric. Performance Summary: It appears that new power demand resulting from campus growth is outstripping electricity conservation efforts adopted in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). The Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research (IBBR) was incorporated as part of UMD in the summer of 21; in its first full calendar year under UMD control it consumed 7,189 MWh of electricity. UMD also acquired the Severn Building in 21, and although it is still not fully operational it consumed 3,178 MWh of non-renewable electricity in 211. Even Weather Normalized Electricity Consumption Electricity Consumed per Square Foot

18 without the addition of these two energy-intensive buildings, demand for electricity on campus rose in 211 (see adjusted total consumption not including IBBR and Severn are shown in Table 1 below). Table 1: Annual Demand for Electric Power on the College Park Campus Electricity Consumption (MWh) Campus Total 252, ,92 269,428 w/o IBBR & Severn 252,536 25, ,61 Prognosis for Improvement: Both energy conservation and renewable energy procurement are steadily increasing (see program indicators for each). Nonetheless, as the campus adds more students and more buildings, demand for energy is rising. A new Buildings and Energy Work Group convened in the fall of 212 to investigate options for addressing energy demand and resulting greenhouse gas emissions. The work group will report their findings to the University Sustainability Council. All students, faculty and staff can help to curtail the university s electricity consumption by turning off lights and electronic equipment when not in use, installing smart strip energy saving surge protectors, and purchasing Energy Star Qualified computers and appliances. Table 11: Heating Degree Days (HDD) and Cooling Degree Days (CDD) for Maryland compiled from the National Climatic Data Center HDD 4,788 4,818 4,955 4,845 4,558 CDD 1,25 9,61 9,23 1,355 1,267 Program Indicator: Energy Performance Contract (EPC) a) Kilowatt Hours (kwh) saved by energy conservation measures implemented through UMD s first EPC b) Annual dollars ($) saved by UMD s first EPC Description: These indicators look at the university s 15-year EPC with Johnson Controls, Inc. which is a $19.85 million contract providing energy conservation measures in nine of the oldest buildings on campus: A.V. Williams, Biology-Psychology, Computer and Space Science, Cole Student Activities Center, Reckord Armory, Ellicott Dining Hall, Lee, Mitchell, and Main Administration. Energy conservation measures include lighting upgrades, water conservation measures, building envelope improvements, a chiller plant upgrade, addition or upgrade of building automation controls, HVAC system improvements, steam trap replacement, window replacement and incorporation of renewable energy technology. Performance Summary: Construction work for installation of energy conservation measures was completed in June 211. Together, the measures are expected to save 5 million kwh and at least $1.75 million annually. Data to verify initial savings is expected from Johnson Controls, Inc. in late Fall Climate data is available online from the U.S. Department of Commerce: 17

19 MWh MT-CO2e Million Saved Program Indicator: Facilities Management (FM) Energy Conservation Projects a) Projected annual energy savings in Megawatt Hours (MWh) b) Projected annual greenhouse gas savings in Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent (MT-CO 2 e) c) Annual expenditures allocated by year of project completion d) Projected annual dollar savings Energy and Climate Impacts of Energy Conservation Projects Fiscal Year Projected Annual Energy Savings Projected Annual GHG Savings $3. $2.5 $2. $1.5 $1. $.5 $. Financial Impacts of Energy Conservation Million Spent $ $1 $2 $3 FY 212 FY 21 FY 29 FY 28 FY Fiscal Year Annual Expenditures Projected Annual Dollar Savings Description: These indicators look at energy efficiency and conservation projects that are being implemented with oversight from FM s Energy and Utilities Unit to support progress toward energy and greenhouse gas emissions reduction goals outlined in the Climate Action Plan (CAP). The CAP estimated that annual emissions of 1,575 MT-CO 2 e could be eliminated by 215 through planned energy conservation projects. Performance Summary: Approximate greenhouse gas savings from FM s energy conservation programs reached over 11, MT-CO 2 e in fiscal year 212. This savings is based on an annual energy savings of almost 7, MWh, or enough energy to power over 4 average U.S. homes for one year 3. Since 28, the university spent over $23 million on energy conservation projects and avoided approximately $3.7 million in energy costs as of summer 212. Complete data on actual energy savings and emissions is not yet available but efforts are underway to measure true energy savings where possible. 3 Estimate made using the U.S. EPA s Greenhouse Gas Equivalencies Calculator ( 18

20 System Indicator: Renewable Energy Generation a) Electricity generated from renewable sources on campus b) Electricity purchased from renewable sources in the Chesapeake Bay region Renewable Energy Generated On Campus or Purchased from Regional Suppliers in 211 Cole Solar: 9 MWh Severn Solar: 455 MWh Off-Campus Wind Power: 1,137 MWh Description: This indicator looks at the incorporation of electricity from renewable sources into UMD s energy supply. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) includes strategies to increase UMD s consumption of energy from renewable sources. The CAP projected that by 215, the university would need 1. Megawatts (MW) of oncampus generation and 5.68 MW of off-campus generation to meet carbon reduction goals. A MW is a unit that describes power or capacity to generate energy and a MWh is a unit that describes how much energy was actually produced over a given period of time. Thus a 1. MW plant has the power to generate 1 MWh of energy for every hour that it is operating at full capacity. Performance Summary: In 211, electricity generated from university-supported renewable energy projects made up 1.7 percent of the purchased electricity consumed by the main campus in College Park compared to only.5 percent in 21. An additional 7.5 percent of purchased electricity was produced by renewable energy in 211 to comply with the State s Renewable Energy Portfolio Standards. Since the CAP was adopted, the following progress has been made: UMD added approximately.65 MW of on-campus renewable generation comprised of solar PV panels on the Severn Building and the Cole Student Activities Building; UMD added approximately 1.6 MW of off-campus renewable generation in 211 with an additional 7.43 MW of off-campus generation expected in 212. The off-campus renewable generation is purchased from two wind installations in western Maryland and West Virginia, and a solar installation in Emmitsburg, Maryland. UMD added three geothermal systems at the Shuttle-UM facility, University House, and one system that serves several sorority houses. 19

21 kgal kgal kgal System Indicator: Water Consumption a) Thousand gallons (kgal) of fresh water consumed on the College Park campus b) Water consumed per capita c) Water consumed per square foot of building space Total Potable Water Consumption 6, 55, 5, 45, 4, 35, 3, Potable Water per Capita Potable Water per Square Foot Description: These indicators look at changes in the amount of treated water in thousands of gallons (kgal) consumed by UMD-operated facilities. While UMD has not yet set any targets for water consumption, water conservation efforts are underway by various departments. Potable water means that this water is safe to drink. This metric includes all metered potable water that was delivered to the College Park campus and satellite locations. This metric does not include bottled water. Performance Summary: The university uses approximately a half billion gallons of water annually. Water consumption decreased.4 percent between 21 and 211. Recent trends showed a significant decrease of 12.5 percent between 27 and 29 and a notable increase of almost 9 percent between 29 and 21. Since 27, an overall net reduction of 7.3 percent has been achieved, as well as a 12 percent reduction in per capita use and a 12.5 percent reduction in use per square foot of building space. Prognosis for Improvement: New buildings and renovations around campus continue to incorporate water efficient equipment where appropriate. In the fall of 212 a new Water Use and Watershed Protection Work Group began meeting to investigate options for increasing water conservation and reuse on campus. The work group will report their recommendations to the University Sustainability Council. 2

22 Percent of Population Sustainable Transportation System Indicator: Commuter Parking Permit Purchases a) Percent of the student population that purchased a commuter parking permit b) Percent of the faculty and staff population that purchased a commuter parking permit 9% 7% Commuter Permit Purchasing 86% 78% 72% 5% 3% 1% 34% 3% 24% Fall Semester FTE Students Total Faculty & Staff Description: This indicator looks at the number of commuter parking permits purchased each year. As a charter signatory to the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment (ACUPCC), UMD has chosen to promote increased use of public transportation by faculty, staff and students in order to reduce campus greenhouse gas emissions. Commuter parking permits are used as a short-term, imperfect proxy to track progress away from single occupancy vehicle commuting to more sustainable modes of transportation. The Department of Transportation Services (DOTS) has focused heavily on increasing ridership of Shuttle-UM and use of bicycling for commuting, and the addition of more near-campus housing has increased opportunities for students to walk, bike or use Shuttle-UM for their commutes. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) suggested several milestone targets, including a reduction of 4,19 permits between 28 and 215 due to increased commuter reliance on Shuttle-UM, bicycling and walking. Performance Summary: Reliance on commuter parking permits decreased for both students and university employees between 21 and 211. The total number of permits purchased decreased by 16 percent since 21 and 25 percent since 28. Students purchased 4,6 fewer commuter parking permits and faculty and staff purchased 1,7 fewer commuter parking permits in 211 than they did in 28 for a net reduction of 5,13 permits, which is a reduction of 94 more permits than the CAP called for by

23 kgal kgal kgal MT-CO2e System Indicator: Campus Vehicle Fleet Fuel Use a) Thousands of gallons (kgal) of gasoline and diesel consumed b) Thousands of gallons (kgal) of alternative fuels (B5, E-85 and Compressed Natural Gas 4 ) consumed Fossil Fuel Consumption and Fleet Emissions Gasoline Diesel Alternative Fuels GHG Emissions 3 Biodiesel (5%) Consumption 4 Ethanol (85%) Consumption Description: These indicators look at fuel consumed by UMD-owned and operated vehicles. These vehicles are used for buildings and ground maintenance, mail delivery, mass transportation of students and employees, crime prevention and detection, and for official University business travel within and outside the State of Maryland. The fleet includes a few electric vehicles, but the majority of vehicles are powered by fuels that derive fully or partially from petroleum and release greenhouse gas emissions. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) proposed minimum targets for reduction of petroleum-based fuel consumption, including 2 percent by 212 and 5 percent by 215 compared to 25 levels. Performance Summary: Since the CAP was adopted, progress has been made on incorporating alternative fuels that release fewer greenhouse gas emissions than traditional fossil fuels (gasoline and diesel) but not on reducing overall fuel consumption: In 211 traditional fossil fuels comprised approximately 6 percent of the total gallons consumed compared to 7 percent in 25. The total volume of gasoline and diesel used was approximately the same in 211 as it was in 25. Total consumption of fuel (gasoline, diesel, B5, E-85 and Compressed Natural Gas) has actually increased 18 percent by volume and 14.5 percent by energy content (in MMBtu) since 25. Prognosis for Improvement: All strategies in the CAP for reducing GHG emissions from the campus fleet have been fully or partially implemented. Further investigation and development of new strategies is now needed. 4 Consumption of compressed natural gas (CNG) is minimal with only 11 gallons used in

24 Tickets Purchased kg CO2e per Passenger Mile MT-CO2e Million Passenger Miles System Indicator: Air Travel a) Million passenger miles travelled on commercial flights for official UMD business 5 b) Greenhouse gas emissions in Metric Tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MT-CO 2 e) from air travel c) Total number of round trip tickets purchased for official UMD business 4 d) Greenhouse gas emissions per passenger mile travelled on commercial airline flights in kilograms of carbon dioxide equivalent (kg-co 2 e) 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Total Climate Impact based on Distance Travelled UMD Business (Domestic) Athletics Study Abroad UMD Business (International) GHG Emissions 1 5 2, Number of Trips and Climate Impact per Mile.62 15, 1, 5, UMD Business (Domestic) Athletics UMD Business (International) Study Abroad Carbon Intensity Description: These indicators look at UMD s reliance on air travel for business trips, research, study abroad and other educational purposes, and athletics. The university has not set any climate reduction targets related to air travel. Nonetheless, it comprises a significant portion of the university s carbon footprint (16 percent in 211). While air travel is essential to support UMD s central mission of research, teaching and service, additional strategies are needed to address the demand for air travel and UMD s 25 carbon neutrality goal. Performance Summary: The total number of passenger miles flown increased by 21 percent between 21 and 211; resulting GHG emissions increased by 2 percent. Purchasing of domestic tickets increased by 81 percent and of international tickets by 49 percent for UMD business (not including athletics and study abroad). Athletics ticket purchasing increased by 32.5 percent and study abroad ticket purchasing decreased by 15 percent. The carbon intensity (emissions per passenger mile) of UMD trips has been decreasing since 28 as the number of longer (international) trips goes up because airplane fuel efficiency is higher for longer flights Measurement includes all Study Abroad travel and all tickets purchased through the Department of Business Services. 23

25 Number of Bikes Number of Rides 1,497,71 1,66,447 2,3,816 2,34,828 2,627,29 2,686,717 2,967,164 3,416,277 Program Indicator: Shuttle-UM Ridership Millions of rides taken by students, faculty, staff and others on Shuttle-UM by Fiscal Year 4,, Shuttle-UM Ridership 3,, 2,, 1,, Fiscal Year Description: This indicator looks at changes in how much Shuttle-UM is being used from year to year. The Climate Action Plan (CAP) includes a strategy to increase utilization of Shuttle-UM as an alternative to driving single-occupancy vehicles. Performance Summary: Shuttle-UM ridership increased by 12 percent to 3.4 million rides between 211 and 212. Since the CAP was launched, ridership has gone up 46 percent (compared to 28). Program Indicator: bikeumd Registered Bikes on Campus Number of bikes registered with the Department of Transportation Services (DOTS) Registered Bikes on Campus Fiscal Year Description: This indicator looks at bike registration in order to gauge interest and participation in bicycling as an alternative to less sustainable modes of transportation. One of the CAP strategies calls for people to switch from reliance on commuter parking permits to use of bicycling. Performance Summary: Bike registration has increased steadily each year since 28. In 211, DOTS had 2,234 registered bikes on record compared to 28 in

26 Reams of paper Green Procurement System Indicator: Office Paper Purchasing Reams of virgin and recycled-content paper purchased through the Department of Procurement & Supply 25, Copy Paper Consumption 2, 15, 1, 5, 1% PCC 5% PCC 3% PCC Virgin Fiscal Year Description: This indicator looks at the total amount and types of paper used by departments on campus. UMD s Policies and Procedures for Environmentally Preferable Procurement (EPP), approved in 29 and amended in 211, include a new provision that after July 1, 212, all general use office paper is to be 1 percent postconsumer content (PCC) recycled. Performance Summary: Between 21 and 211, paper use on campus increased by 4 percent. The university purchased 787 more reams of virgin paper and 4,3 more reams of PCC recycled paper than in 21. Since 27, paper use has decreased 48 percent; use of virgin paper has decreased 51 percent; use of partially recycled paper has decreased 53 percent; use of 1 percent PCC recycled paper has increased 389 percent. Prognosis for Improvement: Through the Green Office Program (see program indicators in the Sustainable Behaviors section of this report), the Office of Sustainability is working to increase awareness and participation in sustainable office practices including paper conservation and sourcing. Many offices may not know about the EPP, and the Green Office Program is one viable way to educate people about implementing this policy. 25

27 1% 18% 18% 1% 73% 73% 73% 85% 85% 87% 88% 88% 85% 85% 85% 85% System Indicator: Green Cleaning Percentage of custodial budgets spent on cleaning products certified as green or sustainable by a credible third-party organization, such as Green Seal 1% 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Percentage of Budget Spent on Green Certified Products Student Union Residential Facilities Facilities Management Dining Services Description: This indicator looks at use of green cleaning products by the four units on campus responsible for regular cleaning and custodial services: Stamp Student Union, Residential Facilities (DRF), Facilities Management (FM), and Dining Services. The Division of Student Affairs 29 Sustainability Plan calls for the exclusive use of Green Seal labeled or comparable cleaning products 6 in that Division s managed housekeeping/cleaning programs including Stamp, DRF, and Dining Services. FM also promotes and supports sustainable cleaning standards and practices by purchasing Green Seal Certified products to the extent possible. In 212, FM became the second university housekeeping unit in the nation to earn the Green Seal GS-42 certification. Performance Summary: Use of certified green cleaning products remained high across campus in 211 with the exception of Dining Services. Stamp Student Union was able to increase green cleaning implementation by introducing a new terrazzo floor protector that has reduced the amount of chemicals and labor needed to maintain the Stamp s floors by 6 percent. Dining Services use of green cleaning products declined in 21 because of problems with their cleaning product supplier; usage decreased further in 211 because their contract for a new green product line did not go into effect until 212 when stored supplies were exhausted. Dining Services expects purchasing for green cleaning products to increase significantly in With the exception of required disinfectants or other specialty products not currently available with Green Seal certification. 26

28 Program Indicator: Sustainable Food in Dining Halls Percentage of Dining Services total food budget that goes toward purchases of food that meets at least one of the following criteria: 1) grown or processed within 25 miles of campus, and 2) third-party certified (USDA Certified Organic, Rainforest Alliance Certified, Fair Trade Certified, Certified Human Raised and Handled etc.) 2% 15% 1% 5% % Sustainable Food 11% 11% 1% Fiscal Year Description: This indicator is based on a student-led analysis that evaluates how much of the food served in dining halls is produced either locally or in compliance with approved environmental and ethical standards. As of 211, the university had not yet set any specific goals related to sustainable food. Performance Summary: In 211, 1 percent of food purchased to serve in the dining halls met the criteria outlined above. This includes items sourced from producers within 25 miles of UMD and Rain Forest Alliance certified coffee. When the definition of locally-produced is expanded to a 5 mile radius of campus, 16 percent of food qualifies as sustainable. There was a slight decrease in sustainable food served in dining halls between 21 and 211 because a large local chicken product vendor went out of business. Prognosis for Improvement: Dining Services has recently hired a full-time sustainability and wellness coordinator to manage their growing list of green initiatives. In the spring of 212, Dining Services and the University Sustainability Council convened a Sustainable Food Working Group to investigate and make recommendations for increasing the amount of sustainable food procured by UMD. The Working Group includes student, faculty and staff representatives and will continue meeting throughout the academic year. As a result of the group s research, Dining Services established a goal of reaching 2 percent sustainable food by

29 Community Involvement System Indicator: Students Living On and Near Campus a) Percentage of the undergraduate population who live in campus housing b) Percentage of all students living on campus and within ten miles of campus Percent of Degree Seeking Undergraduates who Live in College-owned, -operated, or -affiliated housing 5% 4% 3% 2% 44% 46% 38% Fall Student Residence Locations, CY 21 FTE Students living more than 1 miles from campus 27% 33% FTE Students living in campus owned, operated or affiliated housing FTE Students living 1 miles or less from campus 4% Description: These indicators look at what percentage of the student population chooses to live close enough to campus to be easily involved in the community on a regular basis. While residence location closely relates to potential for community involvement, it also ties closely in with sustainable transportation options. Living close by and taking the bus or a pedestrian trail to get to class increases opportunities to meet, converse and collaborate with others in the community. Performance Summary: Approximately 73 percent of the student population lives ten miles or less from the College Park campus according to a combination of survey data and housing registration data from 21. Survey data is not available from 211. The percent of undergraduates choosing to live in campus-owned, -operated, or affiliated housing continues to increase as more new housing becomes available. 28

30 System Indicator: Community Education and Outreach Programs Count of programs whose mission, outreach, or operations serve to enhance sustainability locally, in the State, and around the world Description: This indicator looks at UMD s extension and outreach programs that serve to educate people in the surrounding community, the State, and communities around the nation and the globe. Information is based on information in online program descriptions and does not claim to be an exhaustive list. Performance Summary: As the State of Maryland s land-grant institution, UMD has a responsibility to educate people in the surrounding community and State through cooperative extension and other programs. UMD has also set a goal to prepare its students to be global citizens, and there are many programs that connect the campus to communities around the nation and the globe. In 211, there were at least 62 UMD sustainabilityrelated programs that focus on community education and outreach, up from 58 counted in 21. Community Education and Outreach Programs America Reads * America Counts University of Maryland Extension (5 programs counted): o 4-H / Youth Development o LEAD Maryland Foundation, Inc. Center for Social Value Creation o Agricultural Nutrient Management Program o Maryland Master Naturalist Program o Annie s Project education for farm women o Maryland's Poultry Dingman Center for o Bay-Wise o MarylandAgriculture.info o Building Strong Communities in Maryland o Master Gardeners Entrepreneurship o Center for Agro Security and Emergency Management o Mid-Atlantic Nutrition Conference o NurseryWeb Engineers Without Borders o Center for Healthy Families o Nutrient Resources Network o Child Care and After School Programs o Obesity: A Public Health Issue National Center for Smart o Commercial Horticulture o Conserve Energy MD o Personal Finance o Riparian Buffer Systems Growth Research & Education o Cropping Systems Research & Extension o Maryland Rural Enterprise Dev. Center o Environmental Horticulture o SheepGoatMarketing.info o Expanded Food & Nutrition Education o Sea Grant Extension Programs Environmental Finance Center: o Delmarva Gardens o Small Farm Institute o Maryland Agricultural Exchange (and o Food Safety programs o Small Flock Growers Delaware Agricultural Exchange) o Food Supplement Nutrition Education o Small Ruminant Page o Maryland Online Farmer s Market (and o Forages Program o Sustainable Agriculture Research & Delaware Online Farmer s Market) o Forest Stewardship Education Education Program o Sustainable Maryland Certified o General Forestry Course o Pesticide Education and Assessment o Stormwater Financing and Outreach Unit o Grain Marketing o Vegetable Disease Forecasting o Watershed Assistance Collaborative o Grow It, Eat It! Program o Viticulture & Fruit o Maryland Clean Car Clinic Program o Healthy Homes o Walk Across Maryland o Clean Diesel Program o Home and Garden Information Center o Water Quality & Environment o Integrated Pest Management Programs o Joint Institute for Food Safety and Applied o Weed Science o Wood s Aquaculture Facility Nutrition 29

31 Program Indicator: Food Recovery Network Number of meals recovered by student volunteers from UMD dining halls, athletic events, conferences, and campus concessions and donated to local soup kitchens and shelters 4 3 Meals Recovered from Campus and Served Locally 3, 2 1 5, Academic Year Description: This indicator looks at performance by a relatively new student community service group, the Food Recovery Network (FRN), through which a network of student volunteers work with Dining Services to collect leftover food and deliver it to local soup kitchens and shelters. The Office of Sustainability chose to feature FRN this year because it is an excellent example of an innovative community service model that links the environmental aspects of sustainability with the social and economic impacts. FRN is serving a social need to feed the hungry in surrounding communities while simultaneously reducing greenhouse gas emissions and pollution from landfilled organic waste and saving Dining Services money on waste hauling. Performance Summary: In its first two years on campus, FRN collected and served 35, meals. In addition to its local success, FRN is also working with campuses around the country to add additional chapters. The first chapter was founded at UMD in 21, and in the academic year, three new chapters were added at Brown University, the University of California -Berkeley, and Pomona College. 3