SUNY Keynote 2016:State of Sustainability in Higher Education

Today’s Presenters

2

Jennifer Andrews Heather Finnegan

Sustainability Services:- GHG Inventory- STARS Reporting- Sustainability Planning

Campus Carbon Calculator/CarbonMAP

3

Why We Study the State of SustainabilityTo explore and take the first comprehensive look at key sustainability questions

Are campus conservation, efficiency, and fuel-switching initiatives succeeding?

How much impact do external factors (e.g. public policies, energy costs, etc.) have?

How can campuses be more strategic and effective in managing carbon and energy footprints?

Is anything missing from the available set of campus sustainability metrics?

4

“The State of Sustainability in Higher Education”Report on emissions metrics, consumption trends, and strategies available now!

Visit www.sightlines.com to download your free copy

today

5

The Power of Aggregated, Standardized DataStudy methodology

Data Sources

Sightlines Return on Physical Assets (ROPA) database, with the CCC calculation methodology overlaid. This database has extensive Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC) for its inputs.

CMAP database, with data from both inputs and outputs of campus GHG inventories. Primarily used for comparison and “reality-checking” the results of ROPA analysis.

Sightlines Database Distribution

60%40%

Public Private

34%

21%36%

9%

Comprehensive ResearchSmall Institutions Community Colleges

Improved Energy EfficiencyNew York State Institutions have Faster Rate of Change

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

-

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

2007 2015 2007 2015

BTU

/GSF

Energy Consumption

Fossil Electric Percent Change

Nationwide

Source: Sightlines

New York State

Lower Emissions in New York StateRate of Change Matches Nationwide Rate

-20%

-15%

-10%

-5%

0%

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

2007 2015 2007 2015

MTC

DE

/ 1,0

00 G

SF

Emissions

Fossil Electric Percent Change

Nationwide

Source: Sightlines

New York State

8

States Ranked by Strength of Energy Efficiency PolicyACEE annual rankings

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

14.00

16.00

18.00

20.00

Top Third Middle Third Bottom Third

MTC

DE/

1,0

00 G

SF

Emissions - ACEEE Energy Efficiency Scorecard

Source: ACEE

Source: Sightlines

9

Emissions and Consumption of Signatories vs. Non-SignatoriesClimate Commitment Signatories have 47% lower emissions;

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Climate CommitmentSignatory

Non-Signatory

MTC

DE/

1,0

00 G

SF

2014 Emissions

-9%

-8%

-7%

-6%

-5%

-4%

-3%

-2%

-1%

0%

1%

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Years Since Signing ACUPCC

Percent Change in Energy Consumption (BTU/GSF)

Source: Second Nature & Sightlines

Nationwide: Space Added, Year over Year

10

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

10%

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Perc

ent C

hang

e

Space and Enrollment TrendsNational Average

Space EnrollmentSource: Sightlines

11

Carbon Management Hierarchy“Best practice” approach

Avoid

Reduce

Replace

Offset

The Carbon Management Hierarchy

Actions at the top of the hierarchy are more transformative and lasting in terms of reducing a company’s emissions baseline.

Avoid carbon intensive activities(and rethink business strategy)

Do whatever you do more efficiently

Replace high-carbon energy sources with low-carbon energy sources

Offset those emissions that can’t be eliminated by the above

On-Site & Off-Site Renewables Gaining Traction

12

22

183

122

14

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Inst

itutio

n C

ount

Campuses Purchasing Green Power

RECs Onsite OffsiteSource: UNH & Altenex

Off-Site Production Dominates Beginning 2013

13

13,246,975

1,470,093

32,803,997

0

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

kWh

Green Power Purchases

RECs Onsite OffsiteSource: UNH & Altenex

Green Power Purchases Lag in Non Net-Metered States

14

1,000,254

28,802,438

1,825,600

-

5,000,000

10,000,000

15,000,000

20,000,000

25,000,000

30,000,000

35,000,000

40,000,000

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

kWh

Total Green Power Purchased

Green Power--Net Metered States Green Power--Non Net Metered StatesSource: UNH & Altenex

2016 State of Sustainability in Higher Education:The Life Cycle of Higher Education Facilities

15

% C

arbo

n

Lifespan of building

Theoretical Emissions Profile of a Building

Majority of a Building’s Carbon Profile Unmeasured

16

Repair & Modernization

Demolition

Construction

Repair & Modernization

Operations

In recent years, most institutions have

measured just a portion of operational

emissions

Sightlines

• ROPA+ Database

AASHE

• STARS Database

National Association of Educational Procurement

• Annual Survey

In 2016, We Analyzed Data From a Variety of Sources

17

USGBC

• Higher Education Project List

Second Nature

• Tangible ActionStatistics

Living Building Institute

• Higher Education Project List

Higher Ed Experienced 2 major Building Booms

18

SUNY experiences most growth during 1st boom

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

% o

f GSF

Waves of Construction

Sightlines Database- Construction Age SUNY State BuildingsSource: Sightlines

LEED Construction Popular in 2nd Building BoomPeak in NY state LEED projects occurs sooner than nationwide peak

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Proj

ect C

ount

LEED New Construction Projects

Nationwide New York

80% of Second Nature

Carbon Commitment signatories

committed to a LEED Silver

construction policy

Fast Fact

Source: USGBCSource: Second Nature

Sustainable O&M Policies LaggingBut, evidence of progress implementing programs that extend life cycles

Fast Fact

42% of institutions reporting under

STARS v 2.0 have formally adopted

sustainable operations and maintenance

guidelines or policies

Source: AASHE

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

2007 2015

% o

f Fac

ilitie

s O

pera

ting

Bud

get

Preventative Maintenance

Source: Sightlines

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

% o

f GSF

Campuses have reset the clock on spaces via renovation

21

Wave 1: 1960-1980 35% of total GSF

Wave 2: 1995-201538% of total GSF

Future systems needs of 2 peaks will coincide in future

System Life Cycle

Roofing 25 years

Electrical 25 years

Exteriors 30 years

HVAC 30 years

Plumbing 35 years Wave 1Needs

Wave 2Needs

Source: Sightlines

$0

$1

$2

$3

$4

$5

$6

$7

$ in

Bill

ions

Total Database Need 1950-20503-Year Moving Average Using ROPA+ Prediction

Capital Implications of Existing SpaceFirst boom needs major renos and complex second boom needs expensive upkeep

22

Source: Sightlines

>50% capital spending in Existing BuildingsYet, LEED Certifications for Existing Buildings Rare

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2007 2015

Capital Spending

Existing Space New Construction

Source: USGBCSource: Sightlines

86%

2%12%

Higher Education LEED Projects

New ConstructionExisting BuildingCommercial Interiors

Construction Significantly Outpacing DemolitionFew institutions tracking C&D waste

24

511

143

137 600

5

10

15

20

25

30

2007 2015

GSF

(Mill

ions

)

Construction & Demolition

Constructed Demolished

Source: Sightlines

37% of institutions reporting under

STARS 2.0 were unable to track the

amount of Construction &

Demolition waste generated on campus

Fast Fact

Source: STARS

Summary of Key Findings

25

> Recommendations:> Adopt a more “life-cycle” approach to understanding institutional

impact, including expanded annual tracking and reporting of Scope 3 emissions

> Adapt sustainability policies that target existing buildings

> Seek continuous improvement in sustainability performance

Institutions Measure Carbon

Institutional Policies Common

Average                  Performance 

Construction

Renovation

Operations

Demolition

Questions & Discussion

26