The University of Alabama. Presenters: Kevan Will, James Ireland, and Dan Scott May 2017

Transcription

1 The University of Alabama Presenters: Kevan Will, James Ireland, and Dan Scott May 217 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 Toledo University of Vermont University of Washington University of West Florida University of Wisconsin - Madison Vanderbilt University Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services 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 of Osteopathic Medicine West Virginia State University West Virginia University Western Connecticut State University Western Oregon University Westfield State University Widener University Williams College Worcester Polytechnic Institute Worcester State University Xavier University Yale University

2 Sources of Campus Emissions Collected carbon emissions at The University of Alabama Scope 1: From sources owned or controlled by The University of Alabama On-Campus Stationary Scope 2: From the generation of electricity purchased by The University of Alabama Scope 3: From sources not directly controlled by The University of Alabama Directly Financed and Study Abroad Travel Vehicle Fleet Waste and Wastewater Refrigerants Agriculture Purchased Electricity Student, Faculty, and Staff Commuting Paper Purchasing Transmission and Distribution Losses

3 Updates to the CACP Carbon Calculator v9 EPA released updated emissions factors for 212 and onward Scope 1 No changes Scope 2 Carbon intensity of select electric grids decreased Correlated to coal s carbon intensity change Scope 3 Carbon intensity of air travel decreased Carbon intensity of study abroad decreased T&D Loss Factor increased in SRSO grid. 3

4 Peer Institutions Used for Benchmarking The University of Alabama is located in climate zone 4 Institution Arizona State University Clemson University George Mason University Michigan State University The University of Dayton University of Arkansas University of Tennessee Virginia Commonwealth University Location Tempe, AZ Clemson, SC Fairfax, VA East Lansing, MI Dayton, OH Fayetteville, AR Knoxville, TN Richmond, VA Sustainability Solutions Measurement and Analysis Members Sightlines has approximately 5 Sustainability Solutions Members Approximately two-thirds are private Approximately two-thirds have signed the ACUPCC Approximately forty percent are Charter Signatories Peer Group Based On Size Technical Complexity Climate Zone 4

5 Carbon Mitigation Structure AVOIDANCE: Prevent activities before they start Example: Increase space utilization instead of building or acquiring new space AVOIDANCE ACTIVITY ACTIVITY: Reduce the existing level of an activity Example: Consumer fewer BTUS of energy or travel fewer miles INTENSITY: Lessening the carbon intensity of activities Example: Fuel switching (coal to natural gas; introducing renewables) INTENSITY OFFSETS OFFSETS: Utilizing carbon offsets to neutralize unavoidable GHGs Example: RECs; sequestration; retail offsets 5

6 Core Observations Scope 2 emissions make up a majority of the emissions profile for The University of Alabama; Scope 2 is 58% of the total emissions profile. Total emissions are outpaced by the total population growth on campus; total emissions have grown 49%, while population has growth 88% since the beginning of the analysis. Scope 3 emissions increase due to an increase in air travel; directly financed air travel has increased 66% over the last three years. Overall, The University of Alabama performs below peer levels in gross emissions as they have done historically. 6

7 7 Putting The University of Alabama Into Context

8 Users/1, GSF Density & Tech Rating Lower density and higher complexity drives emissions 6 Density Factor 5 Tech Rating A B C Bama D E F G H A B C D E Bama F G H Density Factor Impacts: Tech Rating Impacts: Energy Consumption Energy Consumption Waste Output Staffing Needs Operational Demands Capital Demands 8

9 Avg. Bldg. GSF Age and Size of Buildings Impact Consumption Space profile is a significant driver of scope 1 and 2 emissions 9, Building Size and Age 5 8, 7, 6, 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, Average Renovation Age A B C D E Bama F G H Average Building Size Average Peer Building Size Average Renovation Age Younger Buildings = Lower Energy Consumption Smaller Buildings = Less Energy Efficient 9

10 1 Carbon Emissions Summary

11 Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control FY216 emissions by source and scope 26% Emissions by Scope 16% 58% Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Scope 1 Sources Scope 1 Direct GHGs 23,87 4,418 5,391 On-Campus Stationary (Natural Gas; Fuel Oil) Vehicle Fleet Refrigerants Agriculture On-Campus Stationary MTCDE - 1, 2, 3, 4, Refrigerants & Chemicals Scope 2 Sources Scope 3 Sources Direct Transportation Fertilizer Scope 2126,346 Upstream GHGs Purchased Electricity MTCDE - 5, 1, 15, Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Indirect GHGs Faculty/Staff/ Student Commuting Directly Financed Travel Study Abroad Travel Solid Waste Wastewater Transmission & Distribution Losses 22,863 19,116 12,756 MTCDE - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Commuting Travel Waste/Wastewater T&D Losses

12 Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control FY216 emissions by source and scope Emissions by Scope Scope 1 Sources 23,87 4,418 5,391 26% 16% MTCDE - 1, 2, 3, 4, On-Campus Stationary Refrigerants & Chemicals Direct Transportation Fertilizer Scope 2 Sources 126,346 58% - 5, 1, 15, MTCDE Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Sources 22,863 19,116 12,756 MTCDE - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Commuting Travel Waste/Wastewater T&D Losses

13 MTCDE GSF Gross Emissions vs Campus GSF GSF increase is outpaced by the gross emissions increase 25, Gross Emissions vs GSF 14,, 2, 15, 12,, 1,, 8,, 1, 5, 6,, 4,, 2,, Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 GSF

14 % Change % Change Change in Space vs Change in Emissions Emissions metrics benefit from emissions decline along with space and population growth 1% Change in Emissions vs Institution Metrics Indexed to FY24 1% Change in Space, Population, and Emissions Indexed to FY24 9% 8% 8% 88% 7% 6% 6% 5% 4% 45% 49% 4% 2% 3% 5% 2% 1% % -2% Space Population Emissions MTCDE /1K GSF MTCDE /Student FTE -23% % -4% GSF Population Emissions 14

15 15 Utility Emissions Profile

16 BTU/GSF Energy Consumption Due to Increase In Electric Technical complexity of campus increases during that same time 12, Energy Consumption and Technical Complexity 1, 8, 6, 4, 2, Fossil Electric 16

17 BTU/GSF Energy Consumption Due to Increase In Electric Percentage Change in Technical Complexity Technical complexity of campus increases during that same time 12, Energy Consumption and Technical Complexity 8% 1, 8, 6, 6% 4% 2% % 4, 2, Fossil Electric Tech Rating -2% -4% -6% -8% 17

18 BTU/GSF/HDD Stationary Consumption Normalized by Degree Days Consumption is below average when heating demands are incorporated 5 Normalized FY16 Stationary Consumption A B Bama C D E F G H Peer Average Average w/o H *Ordered by BTU/GSF 18

19 kwh/gsf MTCDE/1M kwh Purchased Electric Consumption & Carbon Intensity The University of Alabama benefits from a cleaner grid 25 Purchased Electric Consumption vs Regional Grid Carbon Intensity A B C Bama D E F G H Electric Peer Average Grid Intensity *Ordered by Grid Intensity 19

20 kwh/gsf MTCDE/1M kwh Purchased Electric Consumption & Carbon Intensity The dirtier the grid, the more institutions do to reduce its effects 25 Purchased Electric Consumption vs Regional Grid Carbon Intensity A B C Bama D E F G H Electric Peer Average Grid Intensity Effective Intensity *Ordered by Grid Intensity 2

21 MTCDE / 1, GSF Scope 2 Electricity Emissions Normalized The University of Alabama s grid puts them in a competitive advantage compared to peers 14 Purchased Electricity Emissions Comparison A B Bama C D E F G H Emissions using Local egrid Peer Avg- Bama's egrid The University of Alabama needs to reduce consumption 25% to reach peer average Emissions using Bama's region egrid Peer Avg - Local egrid *Ordered by BTU/GSF 21

22 MTCDE/1k GSF Scope 1 Emissions Helps Keep Alabama Below Peer Levels Opportunity exists to reduce scope 2 emissions to continue strong performance 25 Scope 1 and 2 Gross Emissions vs Peers A B Bama C D E F G H Scope 1 Scope 2 Peer Average *Ordered by BTU/GSF 22

23 MTCDE/1k GSF Scope 1 and 2 Emissions In what ways can we reduce emissions Scope 1 and 2 Gross Emissions vs Peers AVOIDANCE: Prevent activities before they start Opportunity: Increase space utilization instead of building or acquiring new space ACTIVITY: Reduce the existing level of an activity Opportunity: Examine sustainability activity promotions on campus INTENSITY: Lessening the carbon intensity of activities Opportunity: Introduce renewable sources of electricity Scope 1 Scope 2 Peer Average OFFSETS: Utilizing carbon offsets to neutralize unavoidable GHGs Opportunity: REC Purchases 23

24 24 Scope 3 Emissions Profile

25 Scope 3 Summary MTCDE Commuting and air travel driving increase in emissions in FY16 FY16 Scope 3 Summary 6, Scope 3 Summary by Source 22% 16% 5, 1% 2% 11% 24% 4, 3, 1% 21% 2, Faculty/Staff Commuting Student Commuting Directly Financed Air Travel Other Directly Financed Travel Study Abroad Travel Solid Waste Wastewater Paper Purchasing Scope 2 T&D Losses 1,

26 Scope 3 Summary MTCDE Commuting and air travel driving increase in emissions in FY16 FY16 Scope 3 Summary 6, Scope 3 Summary by Source 22% 16% 5, 1% 2% 11% 24% 4, 3, 1% 21% 2, Faculty/Staff Commuting Student Commuting Directly Financed Air Travel Other Directly Financed Travel Study Abroad Travel Solid Waste Wastewater Paper Purchasing Scope 2 T&D Losses 1,

27 Scope 3 Summary MTCDE Commuting and air travel driving increase in emissions in FY16 FY16 Scope 3 Summary 6, Scope 3 Summary by Source 22% 16% 5, Emissions Increase 15% 1% 2% 24% 4, Population Increase 11% 3, 11% 1% 21% 2, Faculty/Staff Commuting Student Commuting Directly Financed Air Travel Other Directly Financed Travel Study Abroad Travel Solid Waste Wastewater Paper Purchasing Scope 2 T&D Losses 1,

28 MTCDE/FTE Commuting Emissions Less Than Peer Levels Emissions Trip distance and commuting mix influence commuting emissions levels 1.2 Commuting Emissions vs Peers Commuting 1. Alabama Peers 77% 73% Average Trip Distance Alabama Peers Commuters Traveling Alone Boston College Peers 65% 67% Emissions Emissions *Ordered by Density Factor 28

29 MTCDE/FTE Commuting Emissions Less Than Peer Levels Trip distance and commuting mix influence commuting emissions levels Commuting Emissions vs Peers AVOIDANCE: Prevent activities before they start Opportunity: Construct additional housing to bring students back to campus ACTIVITY: Reduce the existing level of an activity Opportunity: Incentivize off-campus housing closer to campus INTENSITY: Lessening the carbon intensity of activities Opportunity: Incentivize carpooling or carbon-free travel to campus. *Ordered by Density Factor OFFSETS: Utilizing carbon offsets to neutralize unavoidable GHGs Opportunity: Retail Offsets 29

30 Scope 3 Summary MTCDE Commuting and air travel driving increase in emissions in FY16 FY16 Scope 3 Summary 6, Scope 3 Summary by Source 22% 16% 5, Emissions Increase 66% 1% 2% 24% 4, 11% 3, 1% 21% 2, Faculty/Staff Commuting Student Commuting Directly Financed Air Travel Other Directly Financed Travel Study Abroad Travel Solid Waste Wastewater Paper Purchasing Scope 2 T&D Losses 1,

31 Miles Millions Directly Financed Travel Increases Population FTEs MTCDE/FTE Population growth allows Alabama to perform below peer levels 45 4 Total Air Travel Miles Study Abroad Travel Directly Financed Air Travel Population 45, 4, 1..9 Air Travel Emissions vs Peers 35 35,.8 3 3, , 2, 15, ,.2 5 5,.1. 31

32 Directly Financed Travel Increases MTCDE/FTE Population growth allows Alabama to perform below peer levels AVOIDANCE: Prevent activities before they start Example: Increase space utilization instead of building or acquiring new space 1..9 Air Travel Emissions vs Peers ACTIVITY: Reduce the existing level of an activity Example: Consumer fewer BTUS of energy or travel fewer miles INTENSITY: Lessening the carbon intensity of activities Example: Fuel switching (coal to natural gas; introducing renewables) OFFSETS: Utilizing carbon offsets to neutralize unavoidable GHGs Example: Retail Offsets

33 Scope 3 Summary MTCDE Commuting and air travel driving increase in emissions in FY16 FY16 Scope 3 Summary 6, Scope 3 Summary by Source 22% 16% 5, 1% 2% 11% 24% 4, 3, 1% 21% 2, Faculty/Staff Commuting Student Commuting Directly Financed Air Travel Other Directly Financed Travel Study Abroad Travel Solid Waste Wastewater Paper Purchasing Scope 2 T&D Losses 1,

34 Tons Waste and Diversion with Peer Context Population FTEs % of Waste Stream Opportunities exist to increase diversion 6, Total Waste Stream 45, 6% Diversion Rate 5, 4, 35, 5% 4, 3, 4% 3, 25, 2, 3% 2, 1, Waste Stream Increase 1% Population Increase 2% 15, 1, 5, 2% 1% % 34

35 What Has Recycling Efforts Saved? While recycling reduces emissions, there are other benefits involved Resources Saved in FY16: 12,853 Trees 287,31 Gallons of Oil 3,24,224 Kilowatts of Energy 5,292,392 Gallons of Water $35, $3, $25, $2, Revenue and Cost Avoidance Total Revenue and Savings from FY13-FY16: $15, $1, $975k $5, $ Recycling Revenue Shredding Savings Landfill Fee Savings 35

36 37 Conclusions

37 MTCDE/1k GSF MTCDE/Student FTE FY16 Performance vs Peers The University of Alabama performing below peer levels for both metrics 3 Gross Emissions per 1k GSF 14 Gross Emissions per Student FTE *Ordered by BTU/GSF Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Peer Average *Ordered by Density Factor

38 Perception vs Performance The University of Alabama Green Schools American University Arizona State University George Mason University The Richard Stockton College of NJ Tufts University University of Denver University of San Francisco University of Vermont Wesleyan University Alabama Green Schools Avg. % Difference BTU/GSF 14, 114,5-1% GHG(MTCDE)/GSF(1,) % GHG(MTCDE)/Student % Waste Pounds/Student % Gallons of Water/Student 8,33 7,477 7% 39

39 MTCDE Ways to See Progress These steps reduce net emissions by 29% 25, Gross Emissions 2, 15, 1, 5, FY16 Gross Emissions Supplement 25% Solar 1% REC Purchases Adjust Student Commuting Mix Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 "Green Fee" for Directly Financed Travel 4

40 41 Carbon Pricing: Incentivizing Carbon Reduction

41 Case Study: Yale University How carbon pricing reduced energy consumption across campus

42 Case Study: Yale University How carbon pricing reduced energy consumption across campus

43 MTCDE Cost of Emissions The Results How they could impact The University of Alabama 25, Gross Emissions $1,, Total Cost of Emissions $9,, 2, $8,, $7,, 15, $6,, 1, Gross Emissions Decrease 16,3 $5,, $4,, $3,, Reduction in Total Emissions Cost $65, 5, $2,, $1,, FY16 Gross Emissions Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 1% Reduction with Program Implementation $ FY16 Gross Emissions 1% Reduction with Program Implementation 44

44 Concluding Comments

45 Concluding Comments Prospects Impacting Activity/Intensity of Emissions Begin to look at Solar and renewable energies as viable options to begin fuel switching on campus. This will reduce carbon intensity and reliance on the grid where The University of Alabama cannot impact the fuel mix. Through the addition of new residential spaces on campus, The University of Alabama has an opportunity to reduce student commuting and scope 3 emissions without significant behavioral changes. Opportunities Offsetting Emissions Behavioral changes will have the most impact on scope 3 emissions in the coming years. By educating the community, along with offering options to offset individual campus travel, individuals can feel a vested interest in the Sustainability of The University of Alabama. Renewable Energy Credits are not only to offset emissions but they can educate the community and benefit the local area. Through procurement of local offsets, vendors can financially benefit but have the opportunity to educate the campus through demonstrations and workshop, building a sustainable future. 46