Texas A&M University. FY16 Sustainability Final Presentation. May 2017

Transcription

1 Texas A&M University FY16 Sustainability Final Presentation May 2017 University of Southern University of Southern Maine University of St. Thomas University of Tennessee, Knoxville University of Texas - Austin University of Texas at Dallas University of Texas Health University of Texas Rio Grande Valley University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Toledo University of Vermont University of Washington University of West Florida University of Wisconsin - Madison Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Wake Forest University Washburn University Washington State University Washington State University - Tri-Cities Campus Washington State University - Vancouver Washington University in St. Louis Wayne State University Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University West Virginia Health Science Center West Virginia University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Widener University Williams College Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester State University Xavier University

2 What We Do Data, software and expertise for all phases of The Building Lifecycle Optimize ongoing maintenance, repairs and operations. Analyze and benchmark facilities against others in the industry. Manage change orders and construction projects with proven systems and services. Create accurate estimates using industry-standard RSMeans data. Use detailed data and workflow tools to competitively contract construction. 2

3 Sustainability Solutions Introduction

4 Who Else Partners With Sightlines? Member Characteristics: 60% Private 40% Public 55% Signatories of ACUPCC 45% Charter Signatories Members Diverse in: Size & Student Population Setting & Climate Zone Energy Sources & Uses 4

5 TAMU s Peer Comparison Group TAMU is not an ACUPCC signatory Institution Size Technical Complexity (1-5) Climate Zone American University 2.8M GSF Large City Arizona State University 7.7M GSF Clemson University 4.2M GSF George Mason University 7.7M GSF Urbanization Urban Fringe of a Large City Urban Fringe of a Mid-Size City Urban Fringe of a Large City Comparative Considerations Size, technical complexity, region, geographic location, and setting are all factors included in the selection of peer institutions The University of Alabama 14.3M GSF Mid-Size City University of Arkansas 4.1M GSF Mid-Size City University of Denver 4.7M GSF Large City Virginia Commonwealth University 7.1M GSF Mid-Size City Schools in BOLD are ACUPCC signatories 5

6 Components of TAMU s Emissions Profile Scope 1 Direct GHGs On-Campus Stationary (Cogen plant and other) Vehicle Fleet Fuel Refrigerants Fertilizer Scope 2 Upstream GHGs Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Indirect GHGs Faculty/Staff/ Student Commuting Directly Financed Air & Ground Travel Study Abroad Travel Solid Waste Wastewater Paper Purchasing Transmission & Distribution Losses 6

7 Emissions Summary

8 MTCDE Overall Reduction in Emissions Since 2004 Emissions increasing since FY13 Total Emissions Over Time 600,000 19% reduction in emissions 500, , , , ,000 0 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 8

9 % change from FY04 Great Improvements Despite Growing Campus Emissions increasing with campus density since FY13 60% 50% Change in Emissions vs. Change in Campus Size and Population Indexed to FY % 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% -10% -20% -30% -40% FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Gross Emissions Campus GSF Campus Population FTE +40% -19% 9

10 Benchmarking Emissions & Source Data Two ways to normalize emissions for comparison GHG Emissions per 1,000 GSF GHG Emissions per Student FTE Stresses intensity of operations. Stresses efficient use of space. Gross GHG Emissions Total GSF in Footprint X 1,000 Gross GHG Emissions Total Student FTE 10

11 MTCDE/GSF MTCDE/Student Historical Trending of Normalized TAMU Emissions More substantial reduction when looking at emissions per student educated 40 Gross Emissions Per GSF 16 Gross Emissions Per Student FTE Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 11

12 Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control FY2016 emissions by source and scope Emissions by Scope Scope 1 Sources 132,558 10,858 MTCDE - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80, , , , , ,000 29% 37% Co-gen Plant Other On-Campus Stationary Direct Transportation Refrigerants & Chemicals Agriculture Scope 2 Sources 142,299 MTCDE - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80, , , , , ,000 Purchased Electricity 34% Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 1,56 2 Scope 3 Sources 34,926 32,849 41,307 10,760 MTCDE - 20,000 40,000 60,000 80, , , , , ,000 Commuting Travel Waste/Wastewater Paper Purchases T&D Losses 12

13 Emissions Comparison

14 Users/100,000 GSF TAMU is Least Dense Compared to Peers Density factor has an effect on emissions comparisons 450 Density Factor Peer average TAMU 04 TAMU 16 A B C D E F G H Ordered by Density Factor 14

15 % Change from FY04 TAMU Reduced Emissions at Greater Rate Than Peers TAMU added more to campus space and population while decreasing emissions Change on TAMU s Campus vs. Peers Indexed to FY04 50% 40% 30% 40% 47% 37% 20% 26% 10% 0% -10% -20% TAMU -19% Peers 5% -30% Space Population Gross Emissions 15

16 MTCDE/GSF MTCDE/Student TAMU Has High Emissions Compared to Peers While being less dense, TAMU still has more emissions than peers 25 Gross Emissions Per GSF 8 Gross Emissions Per Student Educated TAMU A B C D E F G H 0 TAMU A B C D E F G H Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Peer Avg Ordered by Density Factor 16

17 Cogeneration Drives TAMU Scope 1 Emissions TAMU FY16 Emissions by Scope Peer FY16 Emissions by Scope 18% 38% 33% 49% 13% Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 49% Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 17

18 Utilities Scope 1 & 2

19 BTU/GSF (Thousands) BTU/GSF (Thousands) TAMU s Energy Consumption Higher than Peers Total energy, not regional adjusted 400 TAMU s Utility Consumption 400 Peer Utility Consumption Stationary Fuel Purchased Electric 19

20 BTU/GSF Putting Technical Complexity Context TAMU has the most energy consumption even though less technically complex 200, , , , , ,000 80,000 60,000 40,000 20,000 TAMU Utility Emissions Compared to Peers 0 A B C D E F G H TAMU Scope 1 Scope 2 Ordered by Technical Complexity 20

21 MTCDE Total Utility Emissions Decreased 27% Continued decreases through both consumption and intensity improvements Utility Emissions 450, , ,000 Plant Renovation No Cogen 300, , , , ,000 50,000 0 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Scope 1 Scope 2 21

22 MTDCE Other Scope 1 Emissions Are Small Portion of Total Direct Transportation is largest contributor to other Scope 1 Emissions in FY16 Emissions by Scope 3% 97% Everything Else Other Scope 1 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Other Scope 1 Emissions FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Direct Transportation Refrigerants Agriculture 22

23 Scope 3

24 MTCDE Scope 3 Emissions Have Increased Since FY13 Commuting emissions have doubled since FY04 TAMU FY16 Emissions 26% 140, , ,000 Scope 3 Emissions 10% increase in Scope 3 emissions since FY ,000 60,000 74% 40,000 20,000 0 Everything Else Scope 3 Commuting Travel Waste Paper T&D 24

25 Updated Commuting Data Commuting emissions make up larger portion of emissions mix FY04 FY12 FY16 3% 7% 8% 97% 93% 92% Commuting Emissions All Other Commuting Emissions All Other Commuting Emissions All Other 25

26 MTCDE/FTE Student vs. Employee Commuting Emissions Students contribution fewer emissions relating to commuting FY04 47% Commuting Emissions Mix Commuting Emissions 53% 1.50 FY % % 0.00 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 Students Employees Students Employees 26

27 Students Are Most Carbon Intensive Over Time FY16 Commuting Emissions: 34,926 MTCDE 35% 65% Student commuting Mix Commuting Distance: FY04: 5 mi FY12: 8 mi FY16: 5 mi Employee commuting Mix Commuting Distance: FY04: 5 mi FY12: 9 mi FY16: 6 mi 35% 65% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% FY04 FY12 FY16 FY04 FY12 FY16 Carbon Free Mass Transit Carpool Drive Alone 27

28 Waste Profile

29 Lbs/Campus User TAMU s Has A Larger Waste Profile Than Peers 500 Waste Production 100% Waste Diversion Rates % % % % % % % % 50 10% 0 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 0% TAMU Peers TAMU Peers Landfilled Recycled Composted Other Diversions 29

30 MTCDE Total Waste Emissions are Increasing FY16 waste emissions are back to FY06 levels 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 25,000 20,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 TAMU Waste Emissions 0 FY04 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 30