Clemson University West Virginia Health Science Center West - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

clemson university
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Clemson University West Virginia Health Science Center West - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

University of Nebraska Medical Center University of Nebraska Omaha University of New Brunswick University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of New Mexico University of North Texas University of Northern Iowa University of


slide-1
SLIDE 1

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

Clemson University

Presenters: Gayle Perez & Matthew Lee December 2016

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Developing a Peer Group for Clemson

2

Peer Group Based On:

  • Size
  • Technical Complexity
  • Climate Zone
  • Percent of Residential Students

Peer Institutions George Mason University Nova Southeastern University The University of Alabama (Tuscaloosa) The University of Tennessee - Knoxville University of Arkansas University of Vermont Virginia Commonwealth University

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Clemson Operating with Similar Bldg. Complexity

Clemson’s average building size aligns with peers

3

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 A B C D E Clemson F G

Building Size and Complexity

  • Avg. Bldg. GSF

Tech Rating

Smaller buildings = More energy intensive Lower mechanical complexity = Less energy intensive

Sorted by Tech Rating

slide-4
SLIDE 4

4 8% 30% 14% 28% 26% 23% 52% 19% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Clemson Peer Average % of GSF

Campus Age by Category

Under 10 10 to 25 25 to 50 Over 50

Providing Peer Context

Clemson Operating with space 37% older than peers

10 20 30 40 50 60 Age (Years)

Weighted Renovation Age Older buildings = Higher energy consumption

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Progress Toward Goals – LEED Construction

Clemson has built more LEED-certified space than all of its peers

5 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% % of LEED Space

LEED Space as a % of Total vs Peers

LEED Space % Peer Group Member Average

Clemson LEED-Certified Building Examples:

  • Rhodes Engineering Addition (Gold)
  • Packaging and Design Building

(Gold)

  • Watts Innovation Family Center

(Silver)

  • Lee Hall III (Certified)
slide-6
SLIDE 6

$0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ in Millions

Space/Program Spending vs. Targets

Space/Program Target Need

Phases of Funding Distribution

6 $0.0 $5.0 $10.0 $15.0 $20.0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 $ in Millions

Envelope/Mechanical Spending vs. Targets

Envelope/Mechanical Target Need

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Greenhouse Gas Inventory

7

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Carbon Mitigation Structure

AVOIDANCE

  • Prevent activities before they start
  • Example: Increase space utilization

instead of building or acquiring new space

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: RECs; sequestration;

retail offsets

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Simplifying GHG Sources into Scopes

All expressed as metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCDE)

Scope 1 –

Direct GHGs

  • On-Campus Stationary

Combustion (Natural Gas)

  • Vehicle Fleet
  • Agriculture
  • Refrigerants

Scope 2 –

Upstream GHGs

  • Purchased Electricity

Scope 3 –

Indirect GHGs

  • Employee / Student

Commuting

  • Employee Air Travel
  • Student Study Abroad

Travel

  • Solid Waste
  • Wastewater
  • Purchased Paper
  • Transmission &

Distribution Losses

9

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Distribution of Emissions by Level of Control

Majority of emissions result from purchased electricity

21% 43% 36%

Emissions by Scope

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3

441 24,646

  • 20,000

40,000 60,000 80,000 MTCDE

Scope 1 Sources

Co-gen Plant Other On-Campus Stationary Direct Transportation Refrigerants & Chemicals Fertilizer

68,415

  • 20,000

40,000 60,000 80,000 MTCDE

Scope 2 Sources

Purchased Electricity

16,817 25,961

  • 20,000

40,000 60,000 80,000 MTCDE

Scope 3 Sources

Commuting Travel Waste/Wastewater Paper Purchases T&D Losses 10

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Gross Emissions Decreased Against 2007 Baseline

Despite increase in population, Clemson successful in continuous emissions decrease

  • 20%
  • 10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016

% Change

Change in Emissions vs. Change in Campus Size and Population Indexed to FY2007

Gross Emissions Campus GSF Campus Population 9-year change: +37% 9-year change: +6% 9-year change:

  • 8%

Peak decrease: 13% 11

slide-12
SLIDE 12
  • 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Campus GSF (Millions) MTCDE

Longitudinal Gross Emissions

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 GSF

Total Gross Emissions

Decrease in overall emissions, despite growth in space

12

ACUPCC Baseline Year

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Normalized Gross Emissions

Clemson’s gross emissions have decreased since FY2008

13 5 10 15 20 25 30 MTCDE/1,000 GSF

Gross Emissions (per 1,000 GSF)

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 2 4 6 8 10 12 MTCDE/Student

Gross Emissions (per Student)

7%

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Gross Emissions Compared to Peers

14 5 10 15 20 25 MTCDE/1,000 GSF

Gross Emissions (per 1,000 GSF)

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 Peer Average 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 MTCDE/Student

Gross Emissions (per Student)

Ordered by: Density Factor Ordered by: Total BTU/GSF

Clemson has higher gross emissions than peer average

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Scope 1

15

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Scope 1 Stationary Emissions

Clemson has lower Carbon Intensity after switching to 100% Natural Gas

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 40,000 45,000 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 MMBTU

Fossil Consumption vs. Scope 1 Emissions

Coal Natural Gas Emissions

More Activity Less Activity Less Intensity More Intensity

16 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 MTCDE/ 1,000 MMBTU

Carbon Intensity of Commonly Used Fossil Fuels

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Total Stationary Fuel Consumption

Clemson above peer average in Stationary Fuel Consumption

17

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 A B C D E F Clemson G BTU/GSF

Stationary Fuel Consumption

Fossil Fuel Peer Average

Ordered by: Total BTU/GSF

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Other Scope 1 Emissions

Options for future fuel switching are limited

18 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 MTCDE

Direct Transportation

200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 1,400 MTCDE

Fertilizer and Refrigerants

No Emissions Data in FY07

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Scope 2

19

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Little Progress Reducing Scope 2 Emissions

20 56,000 58,000 60,000 62,000 64,000 66,000 68,000 70,000 72,000 74,000 76,000 78,000

MTCDE

Emissions

460 470 480 490 500 510 520 530 540 550 560

MMBTU in Thousands

Consumption SRVC Grid Fuel Mix (2007)

Natural Gas Nuclear Renewable Coal Other Fossil

SRVC Grid Fuel Mix (2012)

Natural Gas Nuclear Renewable Coal Other Fossil

slide-21
SLIDE 21

100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 MTCDE/1M kWh

Carbon Intensity by Grid Region

Intensity: Scope 2 Already Low

SRVC is less carbon intense compared to other regions

21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Scope 2 eGrid Emissions

Clemson within the second least carbon intense region

22 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 5 10 15 20 25 MTCDE/1MkWh kWh/GSF

Purchased Electricity Consumption vs. Regional Grid Carbon Intensity

Electricity Consumption kWh/GSF

Ordered by: Regional Grid Carbon Intensity

2 4 6 8 10 12 14 MTCDE / 1,000 GSF

Purchased Electricity Emissions (MTCDE/1,000 GSF)

Electricity Emissions / 1K GSF Peer Average

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Degree Days Context

Downward degree day trending as peer institutions stay consistent

23 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000 2014 2015 2016 2014 2015 2016 Degree Days

Degree Days

1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,000 7,000

Degree Days

CDD HDD Average

Clemson Peer Average

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Scope 3

24

slide-25
SLIDE 25

5,000 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 MTCDE

Scope 3 Emissions

Minimal Changes in Scope 3 Emissions

Commuting and travel are largest contributing sources in Scope 3

25 30% 46% 11% 0% 1% 12%

FY16 Scope 3 Breakdown

Commuting Financed Travel Solid Waste Wastewater Paper Purchasing Scope 2 T&D Losses Overall 226 MTCDE increase 2007-2016

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Scope 3 Source Distribution

Air Travel, Commuting and Solid Waste drive up Clemson’s emissions over peer average

26 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 MTCDE/Student

Gross Emissions (per Student)

Commuting Solid Waste Waste Water Paper Scope 2 T&D Losses Other Travel Peer Average 2 4 6 8 10 12 MTCDE/1,000 GSF

Gross Emissions (per 1,000 GSF)

Ordered by: Total BTU/GSF Ordered by: Density Factor

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Air Travel a Highlight on Campus

Clemson’s air travel emissions double peer average

27

5 10 15 20 25 30 10 20 30 40 50 60 University FTE in Thousands Miles in Millions

Historical Air Travel Miles Travelled

Miles Campus FTE 0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00 MTCDE/Campus User FTE

Air Travel Emissions

Peer Average

Ordered by: Density Factor

slide-28
SLIDE 28

0.00 5.00 10.00 15.00 20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00 MTCDE/100,00 Passenger Miles

Commuting Carbon Intensity

Peer Average

Commuting is Second Highest Scope 3 Contributor

Commuting data pulled forward from FY15

28

0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00 1.20 MTCDE/Campus User FTE

Commuting Emissions

Ordered by: Density Factor

slide-29
SLIDE 29

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

%

Landfill vs. Diversion Rates

Landfill Waste

  • Trad. Recycling

Compost Other Diversions

Total Waste Stream and Recycling Rates

Despite increase in enrollment Total Waste Stream decreases in FY16

29 5 10 15 20 25 30 500 1,000 1,500 2,000 2,500 3,000 3,500 4,000 4,500 5,000 University FTE in Thousands Total Waste Stream in Tons

Total Waste Stream* Relative to Campus Population

Total Waste Stream Campus FTE

*C&D waste excluded from totals

slide-30
SLIDE 30

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

%

Landfill vs. Diversion Rates

Landfill Waste

  • Trad. Recycling

Compost Other Diversions

Waste Stream Compared to Peers

Decrease in FY16 Total Waste Stream brings Clemson below peer average

30 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Pounds/Campus User

Total Waste Stream

Peer Average

*C&D waste excluded from totals

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Summary

32

slide-32
SLIDE 32

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 A B C D Clemson E F G BTU/GSF

Scope 1 and Scope 2 Energy Consumption

Scope 1 Scope 2 Peer Average

Total Energy Consumption

Decrease in FY16 emissions, but consumption higher than peers

33

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Progress Towards Emissions Reduction Goal

34

BASELINE YEAR CURRENT YEAR CURRENT YEAR NET

OFFSET ALL SCOPE 2

AIR TRAVEL EMISSIONS AT PEER LEVELS

172,930 158,236 158,136 138,344 103,758 69,172

20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 2007 2016 2016 Net 2020 goal 2025 goal 2030 goal MTCDE

Emissions Reductions

Current Year Net Baseline Year Current Year

Gross emissions, does not include emissions reductions associated with the purchase of offsets

8% decrease since 2007

2030 Goal 2025 Goal 2020 Goal

13% decrease from 2016 needed to reach goal

Net emissions, takes into consideration the purchase of offsets

slide-34
SLIDE 34
  • 1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 180,000 200,000 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Campus GSF (Millions) MTCDE

Longitudinal Gross Emissions

Scope 1 Scope 2 Scope 3 GSF

Total Gross Emissions Projections

With additional GSF coming online, gross emissions will increase

35

ACUPCC Baseline Year Core Campus online

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Concluding Comments

36

 Compared to Peer Institutions, Clemson has both an older space profile and smaller, more energy intensive buildings.  From the Baseline year we have seen a decrease of total energy emissions, despite a total FTE population increase of 37% since 2007.  Envelope and mechanical investment has fallen short of target for the last four years. Address envelope and mechanical needs on buildings in

  • rder to maintain the momentum of emissions reductions through

project selection that Clemson can control.  With a significant amount of new space coming online, Clemson University must continue to increase intensity measures on campus to move closer to its emissions reduction goals.

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Questions & Discussion

37