Shippensburg University of PA. Presenters: Erica Barbuto and Emily Medina January 2017

Transcription

1 Shippensburg University of PA Presenters: Erica Barbuto and Emily Medina January 217 University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska Omaha University of New Brunswick University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of New Mexico University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Redlands University of Rhode Island University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of Southern Maine University of Southern Mississippi University of St. Thomas University of Tennessee Health Science Center University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas at Dallas University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Vermont Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Wagner College Wake Forest University Washburn University Washington University in St. Louis Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University West Liberty University West Virginia Health Science Center West Virginia Institute of Technology West Virginia School ofosteopathic Medicine West Virginia State University West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Wheaton College Widener University

2 BTU / GSF $/GSF Decreasing Energy Consumption Creates Savings Ship spends 28% less on utilities than peers 14, Energy Consumption Since FY13 $2. Utility Actuals Compared to Peers 12, $1.8 $1.6 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, $1.4 $1.2 $1. $.8 $.6 $.4 $ Fossil Electric Peers $. A B C D E F G H I J K L SH M *Peers arrayed by tech rating 41

3 BTU / GSF Ship Now Second Lowest Consumer in PASSHE 18, FY16 Energy Consumption vs. Peers 16, 14, 12, 31% below peer average 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, A B C SH- FY13 D E F G H I J K L SH - FY16 Composite Fossil BTU/GSF Composite Electric BTU/GSF M Institutions ordered by decreasing consumption 42

4 Sustainability Solutions Peer Institutions Peer Institutions Babson College* Bentley University* Boston College Emerson College Fitchburg State University Hamilton College* Loyola University Maryland* Millersville University* Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Stockton University The Catholic University of America Key Concepts: Major Reductions in Scope 1 Emissions due to Infrastructure Overhaul Opportunities to Reduce Scope 2 and 3 *Institutions previously benchmarked in Shippensburg s GHG analysis 43

5 Carbon Management for Energy AVOIDANCE: Don t consume energy ACTIVITY: Consume less by increasing efficiency INTENSITY: Switch high-carbon energy sources for low-carbon ones OFFSET: Offset the emissions from consumption 44

6 Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control Scope 1 makes up the smallest portion of Ship s emissions footprint 37% Emissions by Scope 39% 24% Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Less Control Natural Gas, Coal Vehicle Fleet Refrigerants Fertilizer Scope 1 Direct GHGs Scope 2 Upstream GHGs Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Indirect GHGs Faculty/Staff/ Student Commuting Directly Financed Travel Study Abroad Travel Solid Waste Wastewater Paper Purchasing Transmission & Distribution Losses 45

7 Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control Purchased electric and commuting/travel generate the most emissions Emissions by Scope 5,1 Scope 1 Sources 24% - MTCDE 2, 4, 6, 8, 1, Other On-Campus Stationary Refrigerants Direct Transportation Agriculture 37% Scope 2 Sources 9,59 39% - MTCDE 2, 4, 6, 8, 1, Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Sources 6, MTCDE 2, 4, 6, 8, 1, Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Commuting Wastewater Scope 2 T&D Losses Travel Paper Purchasing 46

8 MTCDE Infrastructure Project Led to a Strong Emissions Profile Gross emissions decreased 32% since 213, driven by scope 1 45, Gross Emissions from FY13 to FY16 4, 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, 5, Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 47

9 MTCDE/1, GSF Two Ways to Compare Emissions to Peers MTCDE/Student FTE 25 Gross Emissions per 1, GSF 12 Gross Emissions per Student FTE Benchmarking by GSF is useful for emissions that are affected by space characteristics, such as age, technical complexity, and systems efficiency. Benchmarking by Student FTE is useful for emissions that are affected by individual habits, such as commuting and waste production/recycling. 48

10 % Change % Change Emissions Dropping Despite Increasing Space Infrastructure upgrades have kept campus efficient 15% 1% 5% % -5% -1% -15% -2% Change in Emissions vs. Change in Campus Size and Population Indexed to FY213 15% 1% 5% % -5% -1% -15% -2% -25% Change in Space, Population, and Emissions Indexed to FY213 8% -8% -32% -25% -37% -25% -3% -35% % -35% -4% Campus GSF Student Enrollment Emissions Nation-wide emissions dropped 3% since

11 MTCDE MTCDE/ 1, MMBTU Drastic Drop in Scope 1 Emissions Due to Coal Avoidance Fuel carbon intensity affects scope 1 emissions 18, Emissions from Stationary Sources 1% Shippensburg s Stationary Fuel Mix 1 Carbon Intensity of Commonly Used Fossil Fuels 16, 9% 9 14, 8% 8 12, 7% 7 1, 6% 6 5% 5 8, 4% 4 6, 3% 3 4, 2% 2 2, 1% % Coal Natural Gas 5

12 MTCDE Success in Reducing Refrigerants Emissions MTCDE MTCDE Though these sources are a smaller portion of scope 1, they provide additional successes and opportunities 5 Direct Transportation 5 Refrigerants 5 Agriculture (Fertilizer)

13 MTCDE Ship Emissions Below Peer Average Fleet and refrigerants make up a greater portion of Scope 1 emissions for some peers Scope 1 Emissions/1, GSF % below peer average A B C SH D E F G H I J K Stationary Fleet Agriculture Refrigerants Peer Average 52

14 KwH Millions No Change in Scope 2 Emissions MTCDE Scope 2 includes electric consumption Scope 2 Consumption Scope 2 Emissions 3 12, RFCE Grid Fuel Mix (27) 25 1, Natural Gas Nuclear Renewable Coal 2 8, Other Fossil 15 6, RFCE Grid Fuel Mix (212) 1 4, 5 2, Natural Gas Nuclear Renewable Other Fossil Coal 53

15 MTCDE Scope 2 Emissions Below Peer Average Ship outperforming peers in both Scope 1 and Scope 2 emissions levels Scope 2 Emissions/1, GSF % below peer average A B C SH D E F G H I J K Electric Steam Peer Average 54

16 MTCDE No Change in Scope 3 Emissions 1, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Total Scope 3 Emissions Directly Financed Travel 5% FY16 Scope 3 Breakdown Wastewater 2.% T&D Study Losses Abroad 11% 6% Paper 1% Commuting 75%

17 MTCDE Scope 3 Emissions Closer to Peer Average FTEs (rather than GSF) has greater impact on Scope 3 emissions Scope 3 Emissions/student FTE % below peer average A B C D E SH F G H I J K 56

18 MTCDE/Campus User FTE % Commuters Ship Commuting Emissions are Among Highest in Peer Group Carpool and mass transit incentives could reduce Scope 3 footprint Total Commuting Emissions Compared to Peers 8 7 Shippensburg Commuter Mode Mix Drive Alone 72.3% Carbon Free 2% Mass Transit 2% Carpool 6% A B C D E F G H I J SH K 57

19 Lbs/Campus User Peers Do More Recycling and Composting Total waste in FY16 was about 29lbs/campus user Waste Stream Compared to Peers Waste Mix Compared to Peers 7 1% 6 9% 8% 5 7% 4 6% 5% 3 4% 2 3% 1 2% 1% A B C SH D E F G H I J K Peer Average % A B C SH D E F G H I J K Total Trash Recycling Composting Other Diversions 58

20 Baseline Year FY16 Emissions MTCDE Scope 1 Accounts for Almost All Emissions Reductions Scope 2 and 3 should be prioritized for gradual decreases moving forward 4, Emissions Change by Scope 35, 3, 25, 2, 15, 1, -31% -.3% -.29% Ship Emissions Decrease 32% FY13-FY16 Peers reduced emissions by 6% 5, Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope

21 Scope 1 Concluding Comments Scope 2 Scope 3 The infrastructure project has produced a drastic drop in Scope 1 emissions focus must now turn to smaller and consistent reductions over time. Continue reducing emissions by switching to less intense refrigerants and improving fleet fuel efficiency. Consider implementing anti-idling policies and combining work order requests to reduce travel Identify a plan for electric reductions and implement efficiency measures. Focus on implementing LED lighting across campus. Educate commuters about less carbon intense commuting options. Review options to condense class scheduling to increase more carpooling opportunities. Continue to improve recycling program, and consider composting as an additional option to divert waste. Electric reductions will also decrease emissions from T&D losses. 6