sustainability metrics 101

© Sightlines 2010

Jeff MurphyManager of Go-Green Services Sightlines, LLC

Sustainability Metrics 101

© Sightlines 2010

Common Vocabulary, Consistent Methodology and Benchmarking for Context

Sightlines – Who we are & what we doNearly 350 Member campuses in 40 states and the District of Columbia

2

© Sightlines 2010

Education:Preparing

future leaders

Microcosm:Scalable

technologies and solutions

Bottom Line:Reducing emissions

lowers operating

costs

Higher education’s unique role in sustainability

3

© Sightlines 2010

What research shows - CMU

4

© Sightlines 2010

The 5 steps to benchmarking

Consistency

Accuracy

NormalizationPeer Group

Context

Compare with Confidence

5

© Sightlines 2010

Collect a consistent set of GHGs

Scope 1 –Direct GHGs

•On-Campus Stationary (Fossil Fuels)

•Vehicle Fleet

•Agriculture

•Refrigerants

Scope 2 –Upstream GHGs

•Purchased Electricity

•Purchased Steam

•Purchased Chilled Water

Scope 3 –Indirect GHGs

•Employee/ Student Commuting

•Directly Financed Air Travel

•Study Abroad Travel

•Other Travel

•Solid Waste

•Wastewater

•Paper

•Transmission & Distribution Losses

60-80% of a “typical” campus’ GHGs are from energy6

© Sightlines 2010


Consistency

Accuracy


Context


7

© Sightlines 2010

Through our GHG validation work…

Most common errors include:•Unit conversions (CCF to MMBTU; $ to miles; etc.)

•Purchased utilities (using local provider mix)

•Scope 3 sources (unsure how to collect the correct data)

GHG Inventory Data

These errors occur most commonly when inventory is:•Completed sporadically

•Faced with imminent deadlines (ACUPCC reporting)

•By students with insufficient oversight and experience8

© Sightlines 2010

The real value of accuracy

Consistent & Accurate Profiles Enable:•Benchmarking for context and knowledge – the “why”

•Informed strategic decisions that:•Address real exposures and opportunities•Save money•Save time•Make a lasting impact

•Longitudinal tracking of accurate progress

Inconsistent & Inaccurate Profiles Lead To:•Inaccurate benchmarks with misleading information

•Un-informed strategic decisions that:•Miss opportunities•Waste money•Waste time•Are less impactful

•The in-ability to accurately track progress

9

© Sightlines 2010


Consistency

Accuracy


Context


10

© Sightlines 2010

Framing GHG performance

Intensity

Gross GHGsTotal GSF

X 1,000

Efficiency

Gross GHGsTotal Student FTE

Momentum

Current GHGs – Baseline* GHGs

Baseline* GHGs

Vs.

11

Database Average - Gross:16 MTCDE/1,000 GSF

Database Average - Gross:7 MTCDE/Student

Database Average - Gross:5% Growth in GHGs

*Database baseline set at FY2007

© Sightlines 2010


Consistency

Accuracy


Context


12

© Sightlines 2010

Selecting the right peer group for you

What makes your campus different?

•Size & Mechanical Complexity

Database Average

MTC

DE

/ 1,0

00 G

SF

Campus SizeLarger schools tend to have

increased levels of research, more complex HVAC requirements, and

larger distribution networks.

Campus Size Categories (GSF)

13

© Sightlines 2010




•Climate Zone

Climate Zone 1

Climate Zone 2

Climate Zone 3

Climate Zone 4

Climate Zone 5

MTC

DE

/ 1,0

00 G

SF

Climate Zones

Database Average

Climate ZoneSchools with extreme climates – hot or cold – tend to use more energy

and therefore generate more GHGs

Zone 3 schools are located in traditional “Coal States”

14

© Sightlines 2010




•Climate Zone

•Student Density Database Average

Student Density: # of students per 100K GSFM

TCD

E/ S

tude

nt (F

TE)

Student Density Categories

Student DensitySchools with high Student Density

have more FTEs to divide their building GHGs over and therefore have lower emissions per student

15

© Sightlines 2010




•Climate Zone

•Student Density

Other considerations:

•Carnegie Class

•% Commuter Students

Database Average

Student Density: # of students per 100K GSFM

TCD

E/ S

tude

nt (F

TE)

Student Density Categories

Student DensitySchools with high Student Density

have more FTEs to divide their building GHGs over and therefore have lower emissions per student

16

© Sightlines 2010


Consistency

Accuracy


Context


17

© Sightlines 2010

Metrics for campus sustainability – driversUtilize families of metrics to evaluate performance over time

Older Buildings that have been gut

renovated

18

Sample U Sample U

© Sightlines 2010

Metrics for campus sustainability – reinvestment

20%

28%

7%

33%

12%

Sample University 8‐Year Spending

Building Envelope Building Systems Infrastructure

Space Renewal Safety/Code21

© Sightlines 2010

Metrics for campus sustainability–beyond carbon

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1A C

Sam

ple

U G I K M O Q S U W Y AA CC EE GG II

KK MM

OO

Tons

/Stu

dent

Total Waste (per Student)

Compost Recycling Landfill/Incinerated 23

© Sightlines 2010

Metrics for campus sustainability–beyond carbon

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

A CSa

mpl

e U G I K M O Q S U W Y AA CC EE GG II

KK MM

OO

%

Total Water Distribution

Coming Soon…

24

© Sightlines 2010

Applying these lessons to your campus

1. Collect and qualify consistent & accurate sustainability data

2. Create peer groups to benchmark performance over time

3. Contextualize performance by utilizing a family metrics

4. Consider broad institutional drivers and outputs to move beyond a carbon inventory

25From Analytics… …To Action