Sightlines LLC FY11 Facilities MB&A Presentation Millersville University of Pennsylvania. Date: 11/10/2011 Presented by: Lindsay Solar & Dylan Bergey

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Sightlines LLC FY11 Facilities MB&A Presentation Millersville University of Pennsylvania. Date: 11/10/2011 Presented by: Lindsay Solar & Dylan Bergey"

Louisa Harrell
6 years ago
Views:

Sightlines LLC FY11 Facilities MB&A Presentation Millersville University of Pennsylvania Date: 11/10/2011 Presented by: Lindsay Solar & Dylan Bergey University of Chicago University of Colorado at

1 Sightlines LLC FY11 Facilities MB&A Presentation Millersville University of Pennsylvania Date: 11/10/2011 Presented by: Lindsay Solar & Dylan Bergey University of Chicago University of Colorado at Boulder University of Denver University of Hartford University of Illinois at Chicago University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The University of Maine University of Maine at Augusta University of Maine at Farmington University of Maine at Machias University of Maine at Presque Isle University of Maine at Fort Kent University of Maryland University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Dartmouth University of Massachusetts Lowell University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Mississippi Medical Center University of Missouri University of Missouri - Kansas City University of Missouri - St. Louis University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Portland University of Redlands The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay The University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence The University of Rhode Island, Kingston University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of St. Thomas (TX) University of Southern Maine University of Southern Mississippi University of the Pacific University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Vermont Upper Iowa University Utica College 1

A Vocabulary for Measurement The Return on Physical Assets ROPA SM The annual investment needed to ensure

and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them.

management The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers

2 A Vocabulary for Measurement The Return on Physical Assets ROPA SM The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life Keep-Up Costs The accumulated backlog of repair and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them. Catch-Up Costs The effectiveness of the facilities operating budget, staffing, supervision, and energy management The measure of service process, the maintenance quality of space and systems, and the customers opinion of service delivery Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment Operating Effectiveness Service Asset Value Change Operations Success Peers: 2

Function of Auxiliary Space Student Life 24% Function of E&G Space

3 Fiscal Year 2011: Addition to Analysis PASSHE E&G and Auxiliary split out Total GSF of Millersville by Campus Auxiliary 42% E&G 58% Function of Auxiliary Space Student Life 24% Function of E&G Space Support 5% Student Life 5% Athletic 10% Residence Hall 66% Academic/ Admin. 90% 3

There is a need to create an institutional recurring fund for facilities so that Millersville can keep-up with annual needs instead of relying on the catch-up model.

4 Key Observations E&G and Auxiliary Analysis Balanced Age Profile Millersville s renovation strategy creates a favorably balanced age profile. Shift in Capital Investment Strategy A shift in investment strategy towards new space creates a decreased focus on existing space. There is a need to create an institutional recurring fund for facilities so that Millersville can keep-up with annual needs instead of relying on the catch-up model. The impact of decreasing capital investment has been growth of the backlog. Staffing Changes in Operations Although Millersville has lost some employees, the institution is still covering less space per employee than the PASSHE peer averages for maintenance and custodial. Higher people costs drive operational costs above the PASSHE average. Energy Consumption Shift from electric heat to fossil has cost advantages. 4

5 Key Observations E&G and Auxiliary Analysis Balanced Age Profile Millersville s renovation strategy creates a favorably balanced age profile. Shift in Capital Investment Strategy A shift in investment strategy towards new space creates a decreased focus on existing space. There is a need to create an institutional recurring fund for facilities so that Millersville can keep-up with annual needs instead of relying on the catch-up model. The impact of decreasing capital investment has been growth of the backlog. Staffing Changes in Operations Although Millersville has lost some employees, the institution is still covering less space per employee than the PASSHE peer averages for maintenance and custodial. Higher people costs drive operational costs above the PASSHE average. Energy Consumption Shift from electric heat to fossil has cost advantages. 5

6 Campus Age Profile Renovation strategy has renewed life cycles and decreased age of campus 70% Younger Total Campus Age: Construction vs. Renovation Older 60% 50% % of GSF 40% 30% 62% 20% 10% 0% 33% 34% 29% 20% 13% 5% 5% 0-10 years years years 50+ years Construction Age Renovation Age 6

7 Campus Age Profile Renovation strategy has renewed life cycles and decreased age of campus 70% Younger Total Campus Age: Construction vs. Renovation Older 60% 50% % of GSF 40% 30% 62% 20% 10% 0% 33% 34% 29% 20% 13% 5% 5% 0-10 years years years 50+ years Construction Age Renovation Age 7

8 Balanced Campus Age Profile Similar amount of young space between E&G and Auxiliary, greater than peers 100% 90% 80% 13% Campus Age Profile v. Peers 20% 27% 12% % of GSF 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 44% 17% 34% 29% 13% 13% 41% 12% 20% 10% 26% 33% 32% 35% 0% Peer Average Millersville Composite Millersville E&G Millersville Auxiliary Under 10 Years 10 to 25 Years 25 to 50 Years Over 50 Years 8

9 Advantages of a Balanced Age Profile Renovation strategy helps manage life cycles of building components Renovation Age Auxiliary: : 35% 12% 53% $60 $/GSF $55 $50 $45 $40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 $5 $0 Age Category < 10 Years Age Category Years Construction Age E&G: : 8% 9% 83% Construction Age Auxiliary: 0% 0% 100% Renovation Age E&G: : 32% 13% 55% Years Age Category Over 25 Years FY11 Millersville Annual need: $8.83/GSF Annual Life Cycle Cash Flow of Average Academic Building Amortization of Life Cycle Expense for Millersville's Campus 9

Rating: Buildings cost more to maintain Trades workers require more

10 Complex Buildings on Millersville s Campus Millersville has the second highest tech rating of PASSHE system Consequences of a Higher Tech Rating: Buildings cost more to maintain Trades workers require more experience/training Materials used to maintain buildings tend to be more expensive 10

materials tend to be required to handle the increased demands on dense campuses.

11 Growth of Campus Density 9% growth in density since 2003 increases demands on campus facilities Consequences of a Higher Density Factor: Additional custodial staff and materials tend to be required to handle the increased demands on dense campuses. Maintenance demands increase with dense campuses due to the added wear and tear on the facilities. 11

12 Key Observations E&G and Auxiliary Analysis Balanced Age Profile Millersville s renovation strategy creates a favorably balanced age profile. Shift in Capital Investment Strategy A shift in investment strategy towards new space creates a decreased focus on existing space. There is a need to create an institutional recurring fund for facilities so that Millersville can keep-up with annual needs instead of relying on the catch-up model. The impact of decreasing capital investment has been growth of the backlog. Staffing Changes in Operations Although Millersville has lost some employees, the institution is still covering less space per employee than the PASSHE peer averages for maintenance and custodial. Higher people costs drive operational costs above the PASSHE average. Energy Consumption Shift from electric heat to fossil has cost advantages. 12

13 Total Project Spending Greater focus on new space in recent years, less investment to existing $45 $40 Dollars (in Millions) $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 $10 FY11 New Space: MU Lancaster SMC Addition - 70% $5 $- FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Existing Space New Space 13

14 Total Project Spending By Funding Source Millersville relies on one-time capital, a less reliable funding source Dollars (in Millions) $45 $40 $35 $30 $25 $20 $15 The annual investment needed to ensure buildings will properly perform and reach their useful life Keep-Up Costs Annual Stewardship The accumulated backlog of repair and modernization needs and the definition of resource capacity to correct them. Catch-Up Costs Asset Reinvestment $10 $5 $- FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment 14

How much should be invested annually? Setting Goals to Arrest the Rate of Asset Deterioration $20 $18 $16 FY11 Stewardship Targets Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program $14 $12 $10 $10.

15 How much should be invested annually? Setting Goals to Arrest the Rate of Asset Deterioration $20 $18 $16 FY11 Stewardship Targets Envelope/Mechanical Space/Program $14 $12 $10 $10.4 $8 $6 $4 $2 $- $3.6 $2.3 $7.6 $5.7 $1.4 $3.5 $2.3 Life Cycle Need Target - Total Campus Target - E&G Target - Auxiliary Model begins by calculating a life cycle need for all campus buildings: taking into consideration complexity, function, size, and age Sightlines recommended targets 15

Targets for E&G and Auxiliary Millersville has missed the target needs creating a substantial deferral to backlog $8.0 Annual Investment Need E&G and Auxiliary $6.

16 Targets for E&G and Auxiliary Millersville has missed the target needs creating a substantial deferral to backlog $8.0 Annual Investment Need E&G and Auxiliary $6.0 Addition of MU Lancaster increases annual need $ in Millions $4.0 $2.0 E&G Annual Need This gap between target and spending represents deferral to the backlog each year $5.4 M $ E&G Actual Stewardship Auxiliary Actual Stewardship 16

17 Reliance on One-Time Capital to Increase Asset Value FY 10 and FY11 fall short of target for the first time since 2003 $25 $20 Increasing Net Asset Value $ in Millions $15 $10 Sustaining Net Asset Value $5 Decreasing Net Asset Value $- FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Annual Stewardship Asset Reinvestment 17

18 The Impact The backlog of need has grown steadily since FY

19 Key Observations E&G and Auxiliary Analysis Balanced Age Profile Millersville s renovation strategy creates a favorably balanced age profile. Shift in Capital Investment Strategy A shift in investment strategy towards new space creates a decreased focus on existing space. There is a need to create an institutional recurring fund for facilities so that Millersville can keep-up with annual needs instead of relying on the catch-up model. The impact of decreasing capital investment has been growth of the backlog. Staffing Changes in Operations Although Millersville has lost some employees, the institution is still covering less space per employee than the PASSHE peer averages for maintenance and custodial. Higher people costs drive operational costs above the PASSHE average. Energy Consumption Shift from electric heat to fossil has cost advantages. 19

20 Millersville Building Intensity Building Intensity drives operational demands, especially apparent on E&G campus 20

Coverage (GSF/FTE) FY12 increase in coverage when SMC will be online for entire year,

21 Custodial Coverage Loss of custodians over time; however, GSF cleaned fluctuated with offline SMC GSF/FTE 29,000 27,000 25,000 23,000 21,000 19,000 17,000 15,000 Custodial Coverage (GSF/FTE) FY12 increase in coverage when SMC will be online for entire year, assumes same number of custodians FY11 Cleanliness (out of 5) Millersville 4.2 PASSHE Average

22 Custodial Supervision (Added) Supervision level per FTE shows slightly higher than peer average Loss of supervision has put Millersville above the peer average 22

23 Custodial Materials(Added) Millersville is spending significantly more money than peers 23

increase in coverage when SMC will be online for entire year, assumes same number of trades workesr

24 Maintenance Coverage Increase in maintenance coverage, yet still below peer average GSF/FTE 70,000 65,000 60,000 55,000 50,000 45,000 40,000 35,000 30,000 Maintenance Coverage (GSF/FTE) FY12 increase in coverage when SMC will be online for entire year, assumes same number of trades workesr FY11 General Repair (out of 5) Mechanical Spaces (out of 5) Millersville PASSHE Average

25 Maintenance Supervision(Added) Less FTEs report to a single supervisor than the peer average 25

26 Maintenance Supervision(Added) Maintenance material spending is among the highest in PASSHE 26

27 Coverage: E&G versus Auxiliary Many, small buildings and higher tech rating for E&G buildings 70,000 Maintenance Coverage 30,000 Custodial Coverage 60,000 25,000 50,000 20,000 GSF/FTE 40,000 30,000 GSF/FTE 15,000 20,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 - E&G Auxiliary - E&G Auxiliary 27

28 Grounds Coverage Millersville in-line with peers of similar grounds profiles despite loss of staff FY11 Grounds (out of 5) Millersville 4.1 PASSHE Average

29 Grounds Supervision(Added) Millersville is below the peer average for FTE/supervisor 29

30 Grounds Materials(Added) Millersville spends substantially per FTE on materials than peers 30

31 Operating Costs Decrease in staff causes budget to shrink; however still above peer average 31

32 People and Expenses Compared to Peers Still proves to be among the highest due to the greater number of employees 32

33 People and Expenses Compared to Peers Still proves to be among the highest due to the greater number of employees 33

34 Key Observations E&G and Auxiliary Analysis Balanced Age Profile Millersville s renovation strategy creates a favorably balanced age profile. Shift in Capital Investment Strategy A shift in investment strategy towards new space creates a decreased focus on existing space. There is a need to create an institutional recurring fund for facilities so that Millersville can keep-up with annual needs instead of relying on the catch-up model. The impact of decreasing capital investment has been growth of the backlog. Staffing Changes in Operations Although Millersville has lost some employees, the institution is still covering less space per employee than the PASSHE peer averages for maintenance and custodial. Higher people costs drive operational costs above the PASSHE average. Energy Consumption Shift from electric heat to fossil has cost advantages. 34

35 Total Energy Consumption Electric drives consumption profile, yet below peer average for total consumption 30% 29% 32% 30% 33% 33% 39% 33% 40% 67% 61% 35% 42% 28% 35

36 Historical Perspective of Consumption Decreasing electric consumption shows the effort of switching to natural gas 36

37 Historical Energy Cost Per Unit Cost Savings are Being Found in Fossil Fuel Consumption 5.83% 4.65% FY09 to FY11 Cost Avoidance: $216,000 37

38 Conclusion 38

Since FY06, capital investments into existing space has decreased 70%.

Operations: A loss of employees creates a decreasing operating budget.

39 Concluding Comments Facilities MB&A Space Profile: Renovations have helped maintain a campus that is younger than peers. FY2011 Annual Stewardship Capital Investments: A large portion of capital investment has been spent on new space. Since FY06, capital investments into existing space has decreased 70%. There is a growing need to create an institutional fund for recurring capital to keep-up with the growing needs of campus. Operations: A loss of employees creates a decreasing operating budget. Millersville has a high tech rating and high building intensity; however, operational expenditures are still higher than PASSHE average. Energy profile remains dominated by electric; however, a shift is starting to occur to fossil. Asset Reinvestment Service Operating Effectiveness 39

40 Longitudinal view of ROPA Radar Charts FY2003 FY2007 Annual Stewardship FY2011 Asset Reinvestment Operating Effectiveness Service 40

Millersville University Go Green MB&A Presentation FY2011 November 10, 2011 Presented by: Lindsay Solar & Dylan Bergey Title Goes Here In This Position University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The

Maryland University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Boston University of Massachusetts Dartmouth University of Massachusetts Lowell University of Michigan University of Minnesota

Louis University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Portland University of Redlands The University of

41 Millersville University Go Green MB&A Presentation FY2011 November 10, 2011 Presented by: Lindsay Solar & Dylan Bergey Title Goes Here In This Position University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign The University of Maine University of Maine at Augusta University of Maine at Farmington University of Maine at Machias University of Maine at Presque Isle University of Maine at Fort Kent University of Maryland University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Boston University of Massachusetts Dartmouth University of Massachusetts Lowell University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Missouri University of Missouri - Kansas City University of Missouri - St. Louis University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Portland University of Redlands The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Ba The University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence The University of Rhode Island, Kingston University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of St. Thomas (TX) University of Southern Maine University of Toledo University of Vermont Upper Iowa University Utica College Vassar College Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Wagner College Wellesley College Wesleyan University West Chester University of Pennsylvania West Virginia University 1

Simplifying GHG sources into scopes All expressed as

Scope 2: Emissions from utility production not at the

activities of the campus Scope 3: Indirect emissions

42 Simplifying GHG sources into scopes All expressed as metric tons of carbon dioxide Sightlines 2010 PFCs Scope 2: Emissions from utility production not at the institution Scope 1: Emissions from the direct activities of the campus Scope 3: Indirect emissions including transportation, waste disposal, etc. This slide courtesy of CA-CP 2

3 Developing Peer Group Go-Green Measurement, Benchmarking and Analysis Sightlines 2010 Go-Green Peer

Maryland Bentley University Slippery Rock University Shippensburg University Rowan University

two-thirds are private Approximately one-third are public Approximately two-thirds have signed the

43 3 Developing Peer Group Go-Green Measurement, Benchmarking and Analysis Sightlines 2010 Go-Green Peer Institutions Fitchburg State University Babson College The University of Dayton Loyola University of Maryland Bentley University Slippery Rock University Shippensburg University Rowan University Go-Green Measurement and Analysis Members Sightlines has approximately 55 Members Approximately two-thirds are private Approximately one-third are public Approximately two-thirds have signed the ACUPCC Approximately forty percent are Charter Signatories Peer Group Based On Size Technical Complexity Climate Zone

4 Collected Carbon Emissions Description of Scope

(Natural Gas; Fuel Oil) Vehicle Fleet Fertilizer Scope 2

Faculty/Staff/ Student Commuting Directly Financed Air

44 4 Collected Carbon Emissions Description of Scope Sightlines 2010 Scope 1 Direct GHGs On-Campus Stationary (Natural Gas; Fuel Oil) Vehicle Fleet Fertilizer Scope 2 Upstream GHGs Purchased Electricity Scope 3 Indirect GHGs Faculty/Staff/ Student Commuting Directly Financed Air Travel Study Abroad Travel Solid Waste Wastewater Transfer & Distribution Losses

45 Millersville University Overview 5

46 6 Emissions by Scope and Year Decline in Electric Usage and Commuting has Lowered Emissions Sightlines 2010 Air Travel 4% Carbon Emissions by Type Wastewater 0.05% Study Abroad 3% Paper 0.3% T&D Losses 6% On-Campus Stationary 6% Vehicle Fleet 1% Refrigerants 1% Agriculture 0.02% 25,000 20,000 15,000 Carbon Emissions by Scope Commute 18% 10,000 5,000 Electricity 61% 0 Scope 1 Emissions Scope 2 Scope 3 Emissions Emissions

47 7 Consumption Impacts of Carbon Emissions Largest Decrease of 13% is in Scope 2 from FY09 Sightlines 2010 Total Decrease of 22%

48 8 Carbon Emissions Break Out in Relation to Peers Large Share Derives from Purchased Electricity Sightlines Emissions Profile 16.0 MTCDE / 1,000 GSF % 60% 28% 45% % 0.0 7% Millersville Peer Average

49 9 RECs PASSHE s Commitment to Sustainability Sightlines 2010

50 10 Net Carbon Emissions Factors in RECs bought through PASSHE, showing a 32% decrease since FY09 Sightlines 2010

51 11 Carbon Emissions in Relation to Peers Efficient Carbon Consumption Compared to Peers Sightlines 2010

52 Millersville University Scope 1 and 2 Utility Carbon Impact 12

13 Stationary Sources Residual Oil Roughly at FY09 Levels Sightlines 2010 45,000.00 Stationary Sources (Residual Oil) 40,000.00 35,000.

53 13 Stationary Sources Residual Oil Roughly at FY09 Levels Sightlines , Stationary Sources (Residual Oil) 40, , , Gallons 25, , , , , FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Residual Oil #5 and #6

54 14 Stationary Sources Increase can be Attributed to Conscious Effort to Switch to Fossil Fuel 35, Stationary Sources (Natural Gas) Sightlines , , MMBTUs 20, , , , FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Natural Gas

15 Stationary Sources Combined Growth Sightlines 2010 BTU/GSF 20,000.00 18,000.00 16,000.00 14,000.00 12,000.00 10,000.00 8,000.

55 15 Stationary Sources Combined Growth Sightlines 2010 BTU/GSF 20, , , , , , , , , , On-Campus Stationary Sources 26% 0.00 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Stationary Fuel Consumption

56 16 Stationary Sources Residual Oil and Natural Gas Sightlines 2010

57 17 Scope 2 - Electricity Millersville has, however, decreased electric consumption since FY09 Sightlines 2010

58 18 Scope 2 - Electricity Millersville Consumes more than Peers due to low fossil consumption Sightlines 2010

59 19 Minimizing Electric Usage Relative Carbon Cost of Each Type of Fuel Sightlines Carbon Intensity of Fuels: Emissions per each unit of Energy 0.18 MTCDE/ MMBTU Coal Residual Oil Distillate Oil Propane Natural Gas Electric

60 Energy Unit Cost Displaying the Dollar Cost of Each Fuel

61 Millersville University Scope 3 Sources 21

62 22 Scope 3 Emissions Peer Comparison Millersville Sits Significantly Below Average Sightlines 2010

63 23 Commuting Patterns Total Commuting in Comparison to Peers Sightlines 2010

64 24 Commuting Patterns FY2011 Zip code data shows that commuters have a shorter trip Sightlines 2010

65 25 Directly Financed Travel Change in travel habits in FY10-11; consider telecommuting as alternative Sightlines 2010

26 Water Usage Slight Increase in Water Usage; Will be Interesting Comparison in FY12 Sightlines 2010 2011 Water Usage 9% 2% 70,000,000 Historical Water Usage 60,000,000 50,000,000 89% Waste Water

66 26 Water Usage Slight Increase in Water Usage; Will be Interesting Comparison in FY12 Sightlines Water Usage 9% 2% 70,000,000 Historical Water Usage 60,000,000 50,000,000 89% Waste Water Utility (HVAC) Irrigation Gallons 40,000,000 30,000,000 20,000,000 Assuming 30 weeks a year, total gall usage per FTE per day is: 24 10,000,000 0 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 Domestic Water Utility (HVAC) Irrigation Total Water

67 27 Recycling Rate A Possibility to Show a Larger Increase through Construction Projects Sightlines 2010

68 Millersville University Conclusion 28

69 29 Gross Emissions Summary Millersville Lies Significantly Below Average Sightlines 2010

70 30 Perspectives of Analysis GSF vs. Students and Types of Institutions Sightlines 2010 Higher Intensity Higher Lower Intensity Lower Intensity Lower Higher Intensity GHG / Student FTE Lower Density-Lower Intensity Lower density institution with lower technical demands (selective liberal arts) Higher Density-Lower Intensity Higher density institution with lower technical demands (liberal arts/comprehensive) Lower Density-Higher Intensity Typical research institution with higher technical demands Higher Density-Higher Intensity Typical commuter-driven institution with higher technical demands Lower Density Higher Density GHG / 1,000 GSF

71 Perspectives of Analysis Millersville in Perspective Sightlines Higher Intensity Higher Lower Intensity Lower Intensity Higher Lower Intensity GHG / Student FTE Lower Density Higher Density GHG / 1,000 GSF Goal for PCC signatories Other Institutions Millersville University 31

32 Concluding Comments Suggestions to Reach Out-Performing Carbon Solutions - Millersville Sightlines 2010 BUILDING EFFICIENCY Impact Very High Invest in lowering purchased electricity, such as

renewable energy installations (Photovoltaic, Solar DHW).

commuters closer to campus to reduce trip distances.

72 32 Concluding Comments Suggestions to Reach Out-Performing Carbon Solutions - Millersville Sightlines 2010 BUILDING EFFICIENCY Impact Very High Invest in lowering purchased electricity, such as building improvements, fuel switch, or PV installation Develop a capital funding plan that emphasizes the energy-related DM needs of campus In-Line RENEWABLE ENERGY Impact High Develop on-site renewable energy installations (Photovoltaic, Solar DHW). Under- Performing Out- Performing COMMUTING Impact Moderate Commuting has been significantly cut within the past year, which reflects upon the scope 3 emissions Work with local community to entice commuters closer to campus to reduce trip distances. Continue to support and enhance institutional policies that incentivize cleaner commuting modes OFFSET POLICIES Impact High At a state level, PASSHE has taken the initiative to invest in Renewable Energy Offsets to carbon emissions Seek further opportunities for local carbon offsets that provide both GHG reductions and educational opportunities for campus community Go-Green MB&A Emissions Gross Emissions (per 1,000 GSF): Energy Consumption (BTUs/GSF): Gross Emissions (per Student): FY2011 Peer Avg. Database , , ,

34 Suggestions for Further Analysis These Data Pieces Will Provide Better Results Sightlines 2010 Last commuting survey took place in FY09. We should attempt another survey this year or in FY12.

73 34 Suggestions for Further Analysis These Data Pieces Will Provide Better Results Sightlines 2010 Last commuting survey took place in FY09. We should attempt another survey this year or in FY12. To ensure more accurate data, it would be helpful to have directly financed travel broken out by categories in an electronic version. During construction projects, the contractor will bill the customer for materials disposed, and often this number has recycling figure attached. If this number were obtained, it would greatly enhance Millersville s recycling figures. We still need credit hours for FY10, and FY11. Go-Green MB&A

74 Millersville University Questions and Discussion 35

The University of Tennessee - Knoxville E&G. Presenters: Peter Reeves & Ditee Hossain June 2 nd, 2016

The University of Tennessee - Knoxville E&G Presenters: Peter Reeves & Ditee Hossain June 2 nd, 2016 University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska Omaha University of New Brunswick University