XU CAMPUS ACTION PLAN ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECTION

Transcription

1 TABLE OF CONTENTS A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES Objectives Historical Usage Utility Rates GHG Emission Factors Capital Investment Projects vs. Purchased GHG Credits Existing Initiatives...4 B. BUILDING ENERGY REDUCTION POTENTIAL Overview Building Inventory Campus Energy Use Building Energy Use Subsystem Energy Use Energy Savings Percentages and Payback Periods Accuracy of Calculations...9 C. EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) Considered Strategies Not Developed Constraints to Applying Energy Conservation Measures Future Technologies and Costs Future-Building Strategies Benchmarking Implementation Methods...15 D. RESULTS Existing Buildings Existing + Future Buildings...16 E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

2 A. BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES 1. Objectives XU CAMPUS ACTION PLAN ENERGY AND INFRASTRUCTURE SECTION There are five paths to reduce the GHG emissions from purchased electricity and stationary fuel sources: Retrofit and operate existing buildings to lower their energy use. Design and construct new buildings to use significantly less energy than the codes allow (recognizing that any use greater than zero increases the campus carbon footprint). Install renewable energy systems to take the place of purchased electricity and stationary fuel uses in campus buildings. Purchase GHG offset credits or renewable energy credits for the campus energy use that remains. Make an investment in non-campus (e.g., community) buildings or forestry projects and claim the GHG emission reduction. The objective of this section of the Campus Action Plan is to suggest the most economical and effective paths to reach the goal of zero GHG emissions, considering the mix of buildings, available and future technologies, capital investment requirements, and the impact of market forces. 2. Historical Usage The FY 2008 GHG emissions were calculated by XU to be 19,500,000 kg/year for purchased electricity and 4,200,000 kg/year for stationary fuel sources. The site-energy use of a typical campus building is 50% electric energy and 50% natural gas. GHG emissions are about 80% due to electric energy and 20% due to natural gas. This suggests that a larger impact can be made by focusing on reductions in electricity usage. On a site-btu basis, purchased electricity has over three times the GHG emissions of natural gas, even after accounting for combustion losses. 3. Utility Rates The electric rate used in the calculations is $0.065/kWH. This is a blended rate that includes an energy charge of $0.06/kWH and a demand charge of $3.40/kW. The campus is under contract to First Energy until mid-2012 at this rate. 2

3 The natural gas rate used in the calculations is $7.60/mmBTU. This rate reflects a $6.00/mmBTU commodity charge and a $1.60/mmBTU transportation charge. The rate fluctuates according to market conditions. 4. GHG Emission Factors The GHG emission factors used by XU in the inventory report and in this Campus Action Plan are #CO2e per MMBTU of gas burned and #CO2e per kwh. The purchased electricity factor is an egrid regional factor. The factors for Duke Energy (the local Cincinnati utility) and First Energy (the present campus electricity supplier) are higher (~ #CO2e per kwh). Higher factors would result in a need to purchase greater amounts of credits in order to achieve zero emissions. The State of Ohio has legislation to require public utilities to provide up to 20% of their electricity from renewable sources. The utility companies could adopt other technologies to produce electricity (e.g., nuclear). Over a year period, this could lower the GHG purchased electricity factor applicable to the campus. We have not taken this into account in the analysis. 5. Capital Investment Projects vs. Purchased GHG Credits The campus can reduce GHG emissions by investing in on-campus energy-saving or renewable-energy projects, investing in off-campus projects, buying green power, or buying GHG credits directly or through a commodity exchange. Ideally, an energy-saving capital investment project should achieve an annual return-oninvestment (ROI) that meets XU's requirement. We assume that the desired ROI is ~10%/year. This corresponds to a target discounted payback period of 10 years, assuming a 20-year project life, 2% annual utility cost increase, and no tax relief. This means any project that has a simple payback period of less than 10 years meets the XU ROI requirement. Investment in on-campus energy-saving projects produces monetary savings for XU and offsets the purchase GHG credits to achieve zero emissions. As the payback period for energy-saving projects increases, a point is reached where the ROI target is no longer met. Longer payback projects still earn a ROI that is better than buying GHG credits, which have no ROI. For projects that save electric energy and electric demand charges, we calculate that the target discounted payback period ranges from 10 years if there is no cost for credits, up to 11.6 years if credits cost $20/ton/year. For projects that save gas, we calculate that the target discounted payback period ranges from 10 years if there is no cost for credits, up to 11.5 years if credits cost $20/ton/year. Energy-saving investments that have a payback period beyond years (depending on the cost of credits) present three alternatives: Accept a lower ROI and implement the project Defer the project until the payback becomes more favorable (due to technology developments, new product offerings, higher utility rates) 3

4 Reject the project and invest in a renewable-energy system when it becomes cost effective (meaning the payback period is better than available energy-saving projects) Purchase GHG credits or renewable-energy credits, which are a pure cost and have no savings stream. Investment in off-campus energy-saving projects does not produce monetary savings for XU but avoids the need to buy GHG credits to achieve zero emissions. For projects that save electric energy, we calculate that the maximum target discounted payback period ranges from zero years if there is no cost for credits, up to 1.2 years if credits cost $20/ton/year. For projects that save gas, we calculate that the maximum target discounted payback period ranges from zero years if there is no cost for credits, up to 1.5 years if credits cost $20/ton/year. The conclusion is that XU should invest in on-campus projects or purchase GHG credits if the simple payback period is more than a few months for any off-campus project. Since these types of short-payback projects seldom exist in any magnitude, off-campus investment is not an economical path to GHG emission reductions. Green power can be purchased at a premium (over the normal cost) by buying power from a biomass plant, wind farm, solar farm, etc. We calculate that the maximum economical premium cost of a kwh ranges from $0 if there is no cost for credits, up to $0.010 if credits cost $20/ton/year. Locally, Duke Energy presently offers renewable energy at a premium cost of about $0.01/kWH. The market price is about $0.005 to $0.01 per kwh at the present time. Green power is not an economical path unless the premium cost is less than 1% for every dollar per ton per year that a GHG credit costs (if credits cost $20/ton/year, green power is economical at up to 20% more than normal utility power). 6. Existing Initiatives The XU campus has already made wide-spread use of several energy-reduction strategies and operating procedures including: Lighting retrofits to T8 fluorescent lamps with electronic ballasts. Compact fluorescent lamps. Sporadic use of occupancy sensors. Networked Building Management System in ~15 of the largest East Campus buildings to control HVAC systems, exterior lighting, chiller and boiler plants. This system is being upgraded to a web-based interface as part of the construction of four new campus buildings. Dedicated outdoor air systems on one of the existing residence halls and on the new residence hall presently being designed. New buildings designed to meet the LEED Silver status including submetering, 3rd party commissioning, sophisticated control strategies, lighting controllers, occupancy sensors, demand-controlled ventilation, high-performance envelopes, variable-flow HVAC systems, condensing water heaters, condensing boilers, high-efficiency variable-speed chillers. 4

5 Control strategies that turn off all boilers, chillers, and pumps during unoccupied periods when weather conditions are favorable. Use of LCD terminals for most computers. Variable-speed drives on fans and pumps. Reduced bathroom exhaust flow during unoccupied periods. Low-flow showers and faucets in high usage areas. The candidate ECMs outlined in this document to further reduce GHG emissions continue to build on these campus strategies. 5

6 B. BUILDING ENERGY REDUCTION POTENTIAL 1. Overview Based on the analysis presented above, the most economical path to reduce GHG emissions is to first exhaust all on-campus capital investment opportunities that meet the target ROI, and then purchase GHG credits or renewable energy credits for the remaining emissions. There was insufficient time and resources that could be devoted to a detailed building-by-building analysis of individual energy-reduction opportunities. This section describes a simplified model that was created to determine the economical emissions-reduction potential in existing and future campus buildings. The steps of the analysis were: Use campus master plan information to document the existing building areas and to estimate the future building areas. Use historical metered gas and electric utility data and building area to estimate the annual energy consumption of each building (not all buildings are submetered). Use industry building-profile data to estimate the baseline system energy use within each building by building type (education, food service, lodging, office, public assembly, service, storage) and subsystem (space heating, space cooling, ventilation, water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration, office equipment, computers, other). Identify typical energy conservation measures (ECMs) that would apply to each subsystem. Identify other ECMs that are of a broader nature, which would reduce the energy use of multiple buildings (e.g., central plant projects). Based on the experience of the engineers or from custom calculations, estimate the percent energy savings that may be achieved for each ECM in each building. From the baseline energy use and the percent savings, for each ECM calculate the units of energy savings, the dollar savings, and the GHG emission reduction. Based on the experience of the engineers, assign a likely simple payback period to each type of ECM. From the annual dollar savings and the simple payback period, for each ECM calculate the capital investment required. Total all of the energy savings, capital investments, and GHG emission reductions. 2. Building Inventory The area of the existing campus buildings is 1,769,000 SF. Campus master plan estimates that more buildings will be constructed to accommodate more students and expanded academic programs. At the time of this report, the first four are under construction. 6

7 Building Area, SF Central Utility Plant (CUP) 20,000 Learning Commons 85,000 Williams College of Business 80,000 New Residence Hall and Dining Facility 240,000 Residence Hall Facility North of Cintas 200,000 Residence Hall Facility West of Cintas 70,000 Residence Hall Facility South of Cintas 70,000 East Campus 600,000 Hailstones Addition 10,000 Williams College of Business Addition 40,000 New Buildings 180,000 Campus Expansion to the South 100,000 Total 1,700,00 0 If all of these facilities are constructed, the new buildings represent a 100% increase in the footprint of the campus. Even with aggressive energy-reduction strategies, GHG emissions will increase when these buildings are constructed. 3. Campus Energy Use Electric energy is distributed to the campus buildings by the utility company via six master meters and numerous individual-account meters. Natural gas is distributed to the campus buildings by the utility company via three master meters and numerous individual-account meters. Many of the buildings served from the master meters are not submetered. One of the ECMs is to provide gas and electric submeters that are read by the campus Building Management System for every building. While this will not save energy directly, meters are essential to measuring ECM performance, spotting wasteful practices, and benchmarking within the campus and to similar building types. There are two central utility plants on the campus that provide hot and chilled water to other buildings. A third plant is under construction. The existing central plants are metered for the electricity and gas used but not for the hot and chilled water delivered to the buildings. The new central plant will have hot and chilled water energy meters for every building that it serves. 4. Building Energy Use Where buildings do not have submeters, usage by each building for electricity, gas, and hot/chilled water was estimated based on the master meter data and each building's area. The existing buildings average 102,000 site BTU/SF/year as a whole. For reference, per the EPA Energy Star database, "average" K-12 school buildings use 51,000 BTU/SF/year and "average" residence halls use 87,000 BTU/SF/year. Buildings that qualify for Energy Star 7

8 certification use 40,000 and 62,000 BTU/SF/year, respectively. A 2004 survey of Midwest Association of Physical Plant Administrators (Higher Education Facilities) shows the campus average energy use is ,000 BTU/SF/year. The buildings under construction and the future buildings were assumed to be more energy efficient than the average of the existing buildings. While the buildings under construction will conform to LEED Silver standards, have higher-quality envelopes and more sophisticated controls and energy systems, they will also have higher ventilation rates, tighter temperature control, better filtration, better humidity control, and more glass area all of which increase energy use compared to the average existing building. Energy modeling results performed by the design engineer for one of the new academic buildings estimated consumption to be 60,000 BTU/SF/year but the model appeared to be overly optimistic. Generally, we assumed a factor of 70-75% of the campus average for the new buildings. This would put the site energy use for new buildings at 70-75,000 BTU/SF/year. GHG emissions will increase by about 70% due to the construction of new buildings if no action is taken to reduce energy use or decrease the energy use of the new buildings. 5. Subsystem Energy Use Energy use within each building was estimated from Commercial Building Energy Consumption Survey data for similar building types (education, food service, lodging, office, public assembly, service, storage). The subsystems included space heating, space cooling, ventilation, water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration, office equipment, computers, and other. For buildings served from central plants, the space heating and cooling was assumed to be the energy used by the central plant. 6. Energy Savings Percentages and Payback Periods The energy savings percentages were estimated for each ECM and each building. For example, to convert from single-pane to double-pane windows, an estimate must be made as to what portion of the building envelope energy is due to the windows and then what portion of that energy would be saved by the conversion. The simple payback period for each ECM was estimated from experience. Adjustments were made for individual buildings where knowledge of the building suggested a more appropriate value. Some of the values were based on previous calculations done for XU for particular ECMs. Adjustments were made for interaction between ECMs. If there were mutually exclusive ECMs (e.g., adding window film and replacing single-pane windows with double-pane), one of them was eliminated. Once the electric and gas energy savings was determined, the dollar savings was computed. The result was combined with the simple payback to determine the capital investment. 8

9 7. Accuracy of Calculations The methodology used in the analysis is not as accurate as if individual ECM savings and cost calculations had been performed based on measured field data and hourly computer simulation models. The estimates likely have accuracy in the range of +/-25-30%. However, they do provide a perspective on the magnitude of emissions reductions that can be economically achieved. 9

10 C. EMISSION REDUCTION STRATEGIES 1. Energy Conservation Measures (ECMs) Considered The following general types of ECMs were included in the analysis where appropriate to a building or system. Envelope improvements: Window films Infiltration reduction methods Reflective roofing / re-roofing Additional wall insulation Adding another window pane to single or double pane units Shading devices to reduce solar gains during the cooling season Electric appliances, computer equipment: Power management, such as automatically powering down office equipment, vending machines, computer equipment when not in use Energy Star appliances, equipment such as residence hall equipment, laundry equipment, food service equipment Lighting: Occupancy sensors Compact fluorescent lamps in place of incandescent T8/T5 fluorescent lamps and electronic ballasts in place of T12 or metal halide fixtures LED fixtures in place of fluorescent Daylighting strategies to reduce the use of artificial lighting HVAC: Recommissioning of building systems to restore the original operation, fix defects, improve control sequences Variable speed drives on pumps and fans High efficiency motor replacements when motors burn out, use of electricallycommutated motors in place of fractional-horsepower motors Lower coil/duct/filter velocities, eliminate sound attenuators Revised air filter program to lower pressure drop Control strategies, temperature resets, demand controlled ventilation Ventilation energy recovery Chilled beam systems (as part of a major renovation) in conjunction with dedicated outdoor air systems to reduce fan power Food service refrigerator heat recovery Pool upgrades: improved heating, pool cover Central energy systems: Academic Mall underground piping replacement Logan plant decommission - transfer to the new Central Utility Plant (CUP) Replace Residence Hall central plant equipment Replace Brockman central plant equipment 10

11 Replace Alumni Center boilers Replace one Cintas chiller with a higher efficiency unit CUP boiler condensing economizer when the new, larger, non-condensing boilers are installed for future buildings CUP boiler in-stack economizer Solar water heating on individual buildings Submetering on all individual buildings for electric power, gas (and ideally, hot water and chilled water) Water conservation measures - low flow heads to reduce hot water use Open-loop geothermal coupled with heat recovery chillers for heating and cooling Natural gas fuel cells to produce electricity Cogeneration systems to produce electricity and hot water from burning natural gas onsite Next-level future buildings: Super insulation and envelopes Integrated photovoltaic systems (generation capability built into exterior finishes) Substantially better performance than energy code Renewable-energy systems: Photovoltaic arrays to generate electricity from solar energy Wind turbines Digester using campus waste 2. Strategies Not Developed The following types of opportunities were not analyzed in detail. Low-cost operations and maintenance items some of these savings opportunities fall under the recommissioning task or will be achieved through educational programs and existing Physical Plant initiatives. Alternatives to utility power such as fuel cells, photovoltaic, wind, electrolysis/hydrogen fuel, etc. Due to their long payback periods at the present time, these opportunities are viewed as "future technologies" that may be able to make up the difference between conservation and zero emissions after all economical ECMs are implemented in the campus buildings. See the discussion on future technologies, below. 3. Constraints to Applying Energy Conservation Measures Difficulties will be encountered in trying to implement every proposed ECMs in every building. For example, shading devices may not be suitable for the décor, physical space doesn't exist for heat recovery equipment, occupants are resistant to the changes (e.g., using a pool cover), occupancy sensors aren't practical in as many rooms as estimated. Some ECMs are not practical to do unless the entire building is being gutted for renovation (e.g., chilled beams). 11

12 The analysis results were interpreted to be conservative so as to not overstate the retrofit potential or understate the implementation cost. 4. Future Technologies and Costs The ECMs included in the analysis are those that are available, practical, and viable today or are likely to reach such status in the next years. For example, LED lighting was included with a simple payback period of 10 years. The payback period today is closer to years but it is expected to improve. This technology would only be adopted once the life-cycle economics are favorable, much like the application of T8 lamps over the last decade. This is one of the largest opportunities in the existing buildings. Some ECMs, like motor replacement or roof insulation, are only economical when the component must be replaced. While a short payback period may have been used, it is for the premium cost to upgrade to a more energy-efficient level, not to replace the entire component. Working motors can't be economically replaced if they are still working. Roof insulation can't be economically upgraded until the roof membrane must be replaced. Many technologies, such as wind turbines, fuel cells, and photovoltaics also have long payback periods at the present time. These fall in the category of "alternatives to utility power" and would be used as cleaner sources of electricity once all other economical means to reduce campus consumption are exhausted. Whether they ever become viable will depend on market forces and technology developments. Even if they do become viable, they may be deployed more economically by third parties or the utility companies, rather than by the individual end users. If a developing technology, like photovoltaics, suddenly becomes very cost effective (e.g., 5 year simple payback), then it would trump all other ECMs that have a longer payback. At that time, it would be best to invest in the technology. It is not very likely that there would be a huge price break-through. Market forces and the need to recoup development costs will likely keep prices high compared to present energy costs. 5. Future-Building Strategies The future buildings being proposed could double the area of the campus under roof. No building can be made net-zero (without the inclusion of renewable-energy systems). They will only increase the carbon footprint of the campus. If the goal of the campus is to be carbon neutral, it is a given that the future buildings must be as efficient as economically possible. Even with that strategy, renewable energy systems or GHG credits will still be required to make up the difference. A major issue is how to adopt new energy efficiency philosophies within traditional funding, design, and construction management mindsets. Suggestions to improve the end result include the following: Budgeting / financing The cost of new buildings are traditionally benchmarked against buildings of similar function and size that other entities have built. Budgets are usually 12

13 set early in the project and the entire design and construction team works to meet that cost-per-sf, cost-per-bed, or cost-per-classroom-seat budget. We are in a transition period. Most historical cost data is from buildings that were not energy efficient or only make modest attempts to be more efficient. Addition investments to drive energy performance can be the first to be cut or "value engineered" out of the project when budget ceilings are hit. To make major strides in reducing energy consumption, a different financing model must be developed and adopted. Perhaps this involves benchmarking the construction cost to a base building performance concept then adding incremental funding to support "super efficient" concepts. This incremental funding could come from a different University budget, outside donors (naming rights for the energy systems?), third-party investors who would finance the incremental investment over time. Augment the LEED process Based on the energy system selection and design details of the four new Hoff Academic Quad buildings, the LEED process alone does not go far enough to insure the lowest economical GHG emissions are achieved. Energy points are only a small portion of the total points needed. Designing to a LEED Silver level does little to inspire imaginative concepts. We are left with systems that have been routine over the last 20 years. LEED points are earned for the percentage cost reduction that the proposed building is expected to achieve compared to a base building, as defined by ASHRAE Standard Depending on the type of building and the utility sources, Standard 90.1 is an inconsistent benchmarking tool. For example, o o o o o o If a building is served from a central plant, both the proposed and the base building must assume the same central plant is used. Small proposed buildings are allowed to be compared to less efficient base buildings, making the percent savings appear higher even though the BTU/SF/year is no better than a large building would achieve. No credit can be earned for passive solar features or improved building massing. There is no baseline performance for fume hoods, IT equipment, and electrical equipment. As Standard 90.1 is revised, the base building performance will be increasing, making comparison of proposed buildings designed several years apart less meaningful. The comparisons are made based on utility cost, not GHG emissions or energy. Thus, a proposed design may be more cost efficient but have higher GHG emissions due to greater reliance on electricity. Ways of improving the process would be to set BTU/SF/year targets, use the Energy Star points system, or use the ASHRAE EQ Rating System, rather than a single percentage-reduction benchmark. Enhanced modeling Most building and energy system modeling is done after the concepts are established, to verify that the building meets code and to see how many 13

14 LEED points can be earned. Modeling should be done early in the design process to examine dozens of variables and concepts, while changes can still be easily made. A single building simulation tool, like equest or EnergyPlus (popular with LEED modelers), is incapable of modeling every design aspect of a project. The design team must have access to many specialized programs to optimize component performance. For example: o o A particular fan selection could beat the Standard 90.1 minimum requirements but multiple iterations of a vendor equipment selection program, coupled with pricing information, could greatly lower the fan power from the base case. Perhaps the noise level would also be reduced in the process, such that the cost and pressure loss of a sound attenuator could be eliminated. A duct system could be sized by manual calculations such that the fan power meets the minimum requirement. A computerized duct sizing program could be used to iterate the duct design, saving both first cost and the fan power. Equal marginal performance One goal of the modeling and design effort should be to insure that every component and subsystem is sized and selected to operate at the margin. That is, if the desired ROI is 10%/year, the efficiency of every component and subsystem should be improved until the ROI limit is reached. For example: o o o o The R-values of the walls and roof should be increased until the last increment (the last R-value) has a 10% ROI. The glazing systems should be enhanced until the last pane or the last coating has a 10% ROI. The duct/coil/filter/pipe velocities should decrease until the last size increment has a 10% ROI. The chiller and boiler efficiency should be increased until the incremental cost and savings between two models has a 10% ROI. The overall ROI for improvements made to a component or system will be much higher than the target, since every increment prior to the last will inherently perform better. State the cost of achieving net zero emissions Require the design team to calculate the life-cycle cost of the proposed design, including purchasing renewable energy credits or GHG credits to offset all purchased energy. The life cycle cost would equal the building first cost + the net present value of [the annual utility costs + the annual cost of GHG credits + the annual cost of maintenance]. This would insure that the building optimization process includes all future costs, in line with the University s environmental goals. 6. Benchmarking Enhanced energy metering is one of the proposed ECMs that were included in the analysis. While not a direct energy saver, metering can provide valuable information on where attention and investment should be focused. It can help spot anomalies and wasteful practices, guide 14

15 facility policies, and allow charge-back of energy costs to the end users (to incentivize conservation). The metering program can include automatic data gathering, organization of the data, real-time dashboards and periodic reports that are easy to understand. 7. Implementation Methods Several methods are available to implement long-term GHG-emission-reduction programs. They include: Self-manage The University could continue with its present strategy of guiding and directing all aspects of the program. Existing or additional Physical Plant staff would manage the analysis and design engineers, write requests to obtain internal funding, hire contractors, manage the construction, and pursue grants. Third-party partnerships A company is hired to manage portions of the program as an extension of the in-house staff. The goal is to allow the University to defer hiring additional permanent skilled staff members by off-loading some of the management activities, such as directing engineers, developing financial justifications, writing requests for funding, pursuing grants, developing PR, bidding and managing projects, and monitoring the results. These relationships are usually more open than ESCOs. They still require significant management participation and retain control by the University. Energy Service Companies (ESCOs) A company is hired, usually with no upfront cost, to conduct energy analyses, recommend opportunities, implement and manage the projects, and possibly provide project financing. Guaranteed savings may or may not be included. The University pays based on the savings achieved or at a set rate. No costs are incurred for projects that do not come to fruition. Overall costs tend to be significantly higher than self-managed or partnerships due to the high overhead burdens that these firms have. Line-item details of project economics are usually not shared, leading to higher-than-necessary costs. Results may occur faster since the ESCO has an incentive to complete projects in order to begin to receive payments. Contract Energy Provider A company enters into an agreement with the University to install an energy system on the campus, such as a fuel cell, photovoltaic array, heatrecovery chiller, cogeneration system, at no upfront cost. The University pays for the power produced at an agreed-upon rate over the life of the contract. The Provider owns and maintains the system. 15

16 D. RESULTS 1. Existing Buildings The proposed ECMs for the existing buildings were arranged in order of increasing simple payback period and plotted against cumulative GHG emissions. Future technologies, such as LED lights and fuel cells, and central utility technologies, such as geothermal and photovoltaic, were not included. Figure 1 shows that about 20% of the existing building emissions can be cost-effectively reduced (<~10 year simple payback period). To get to 25% requires extending the allowable simple payback period to about 25 years. The 10-year simple payback period cut-off excludes two longer-payback projects that should be included despite the economics improved utility metering and replacement of the Academic Mall underground piping system. The metering is valuable to allow monitoring of building performance. The Mall piping replacement is necessary from a maintenance and reliability need. Figure 2 shows the cumulative capital investment as the GHG emission reduction increases. A $2.5mm capital investment would be required to achieve a 20% reduction. Figure 3 shows the net present value of the capital investments, energy savings, and GHG credit costs. It was assumed that GHG credits would be purchased to offset all emissions remaining after the ECMs are implemented and that the credits cost $3/ton/year. The optimum net present value is at the 20% GHG reduction level. Beyond this point, the further investment in ECMs does save enough to justify the savings of purchasing GHG credits. If less than the optimum is invested, the cost of purchasing increasing amounts of credits drags down the net present value. If the cost of GHG credits is assumed to be higher, the optimum GHG reduction percentage remains the same. The curve is merely shifted downward. 2. Existing + Future Buildings The proposed ECMs for all buildings were arranged in order of increasing simple payback period and plotted against cumulative GHG emissions. Included were three major future technologies, LED lights, next level new buildings, and a campus-wide geothermal heating system. Figure 4 shows that about 40% of the projected future emissions can be costeffectively reduced (<~10 year simple payback period). About 25% of the reduction in the total emissions was due to these three technologies. Due to the uncertainty of these items, there could be considerable variation in the actual cost-effective outcome. Figure 5 shows the cumulative capital investment as the GHG emission reduction increases. A $15mm capital investment would be required to achieve a 40% reduction. Figure 6 shows the net present value of the capital investments, energy savings, and GHG credit costs at the same $3/ton/year credit cost. The optimum net present value is at the 40% GHG reduction level. If the cost of GHG credits is assumed to be higher, the optimum GHG reduction percentage remains the same. The curve is merely shifted downward. 16

17 Figure 7 shows the net present value of the capital investments, energy savings, and cost of purchasing green power. It was assumed that green power at $0.01/kWH would be purchased for all purchased electricity remaining after the ECMs are implemented. The optimum net present value is at the same 40% GHG reduction level. At higher costs for green power, the geothermal system is not cost effective, since it increases electric usage so much in exchange for a reduction in gas usage. The optimum net present value is at ~33% GHG reduction level. 17

18 E. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS This portion of the Campus Action Plan determined the approximate cost-effective levels of GHG emission reduction that can be achieved by retrofitting existing buildings and constructing new buildings to higher standards. Based on the range of expected costs for renewable energy credits and GHG offset credits, about 20% of the existing building emissions and 40% of the existing + future building emissions can reduced via conservation efforts. The reduced emission levels are dependent on certain technologies becoming cost effective over time. To achieve zero emissions, the remainder will have to come from credits purchased on the open market. The recommended course of action for achieving zero GHG emissions includes the following: Continue to identify and implement high-value ECM projects in the existing buildings and central utility plants. Refine the calculation methodology used in this analysis based on individual ECM investigations on a building-by-building and system-by-system basis. Follow the development and commercialization of new technologies that would be applicable to XU, including more effective lighting, better control algorithms, renewableenergy systems. Be flexible in the program direction based on changing energy price signals, particularly higher electric rates that would make electrical savings more valuable. GHG emissions are strongly impacted by electricity use. Take advantage of incentive programs and grants. Recently, Duke Energy adopted their Save-A-Watt campaign in Ohio which pays for part of the cost of energy analyses and is integrated with their prescriptive and custom incentive (rebate) programs. Implement enhanced building and system metering. Organize the data streams using automated tools, dashboards, and smart reporting. Communicate performance to all participants (building occupants, Physical Plant, academic departments). Set higher energy design standards for new and renovated buildings. Go beyond LEED as the benchmark. Include more rigorous system modeling requirements. Require equal marginal performance analyses for all systems and components. Develop mechanisms for financing the energy improvements. Insure that the construction cost benchmarks adapt to the GHG emission reduction goals and that the design and construction teams are incentivized to respond appropriately. Expand the campus construction standards to give better guidance on energy performance, system design techniques, and long-term University energy-system goals. Make life-cycle costing the foundation of all energy system decisions. Track the costs, commodity markets, and suppliers of renewable energy credits and GHG offset credits. A timeline for achieving reduced target levels should be developed. The aggressiveness of the targets will depend on how much and how quickly the University wants to achieve a GHG emission reduction. 18

19 Figure 1 Simple Payback vs. GHG Emission Reduction In Existing Buildings 35% 30% Cumulative GHG Reduction, % of Existing Building Emissions 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Simple Payback, Years

20 Figure 2 GHG Emissions Reduction vs. Capital Cost in Existing Buildings $9,000,000 $8,000,000 $7,000,000 $6,000,000 Cumulative Capital Cost $5,000,000 $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Cumulative GHG Reduction

21 $2,500,000 Figure 3 GHG Emission Reduction vs. Net Present Value (Energy Savings - Capital Cost - Credits) (GHG Credits Purchased for All Remaining Emissions) $2,000,000 $1,500,000 Cumulative Net Present Value $1,000,000 $500,000 $0 -$500,000 -$1,000,000 -$1,500,000 -$2,000,000 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Cumulative GHG Reduction

22 Figure 4 Simple Payback vs. GHG Emissions Reduction in Existing + Future Buildings 60% 50% 40% Cumulative GHG Reduction 30% 20% 10% 0% Simple Payback, Years

23 Figure 5 GHG Emissions Reduction vs. Capital Cost in Existing + Future Buildings $30,000,000 $25,000,000 $20,000,000 Cumulative Capital Cost $15,000,000 $10,000,000 $5,000,000 $0 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Cumulative GHG Reduction

24 $10,000,000 Figure 6 GHG Emissions Reduction vs. Net Present Value (Energy Savings - Capital Cost - Credits) (GHG Credits Purchased for All Remaining Emissions) $8,000,000 Cumulative Net Present Value $6,000,000 $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $0 -$2,000,000 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Cumulative GHG Reduction

25 $5,000,000 Figure 7 GHG Reduction vs. Net Present Value (Energy Savings - Capital Cost - Green Power Cost) (Green Power Purchased for All Remaining kwh) $4,000,000 $3,000,000 $2,000,000 Cumulative Net Present Value $1,000,000 $0 -$1,000,000 -$2,000,000 -$3,000,000 -$4,000,000 -$5,000,000 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Cumulative GHG Reduction