Triumvirate Environmental RISE meeting

  • 520 views
Uploaded on

Triumvirate Environmental invited former Harvard Green Campus founder Leith Sharp to present at theiir quarterly RISE (responsibility in sustaining our environment) meeting.

Triumvirate Environmental invited former Harvard Green Campus founder Leith Sharp to present at theiir quarterly RISE (responsibility in sustaining our environment) meeting.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
520
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1

Actions

Shares
Downloads
5
Comments
0
Likes
1

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Transforming Our Institutions: The Harvard Green Campus Initiative Case Study Leith Sharp, Leith_sharp@harvard.edu October 2008
  • 2. Harvard’s Organizational Structure
  • 3. Harvard’s Management Structure • Highly decentralized • Schools financially autonomous • Strong individual identities & cultures of Schools Corporation President and Provost Vice Presidents Deans Central Adminsitration Schools
  • 4. Harvard’s Population
  • 5. Harvard University Students • 19,000 Degree Students • 13,000 Fellows, non-degree & summer students Faculty • 2400 Faculty (on campus) • 9000 Faculty (teaching hospitals) Staff • 12,000 Administrative Staff
  • 6. Harvard’s Complexity
  • 7. Complexity in Infrastructure Lab/studio Library Assembly & 17% 8% Museum 6% Support 5% Commercial 5% Other Office & 15% Athletic Classroom 4% 24% Health care 0.4% Residential 31%
  • 8. Unknown Complexity in Decision Making Simple Lighting Retrofit Project • Location: student residence (~300 students) • Proposed savings: • Annual savings >$20,000 • Payback <3 yrs Process…
  • 9. Unknown Complexity in Decision Making Simple Lighting Retrofit Project
  • 10. Unknown Complexity in Decision Making Simple Lighting Retrofit Project School HGCI Fin Mgr (capital budget) Loan Fund Fin Mgr (operating budget) 1 2 Change Facility Director Agent Building Manager (Superintendent) House Master Vendor Univ. Ops House occupants (students) Sales Rep REP coordinator (student) Technician Maintenanc e crew
  • 11. Unknown Complexity in Decision Making Simple Lighting Retrofit Project School HGCI 4 Fin Mgr (capital budget) Loan Fund Fin Mgr (operating budget) 1 2 Change Facility Director Agent Building Manager (Superintendent) House Master Vendor 3 Univ. Ops House occupants (students) Sales Rep REP coordinator (student) Technician Maintenanc e crew
  • 12. Unknown Complexity in Decision Making Simple Lighting Retrofit Project School HGCI 4 Fin Mgr (capital budget) Loan Fund Fin Mgr (operating budget) 1 2 Change Facility Director 5 6 Building Manager (Superintendent) Agent House Master Vendor 3 Univ. Ops House occupants (students) Sales Rep REP coordinator (student) Technician Maintenanc e crew
  • 13. Unknown Complexity in Decision Making Simple Lighting Retrofit Project • Full Process = 3 months of constant facilitation by HGCI School HGCI 4 Fin Mgr (capital budget) 2 1 1 Loan Fund Fin Mgr (operating budget) 0 1 7 8 8 1 2 9 Change Facility Director 5 6 7 Agent Building Manager (Superintendent) 1 9 1 House Master 4 0 Vendor 3 1 1 1 Univ. Ops 1 House occupants (students) Sales Rep 5 2 1 3 REP coordinator (student) Technician 1 Maintenanc 6 e crew
  • 14. Harvard’s Growth
  • 15. Harvard as Builder • 600 campus buildings • 21 million gross square feet (gsf) of floor space • Historical trends - 1 million gsf per decade
  • 16. Harvard as Landowner • 657 acres of campus land area – 219 acres in Cambridge – 22 acres in Longwood – 250 acres in Allston – 137 acres in Southborough – 29 acres in Watertown • 4,100 acres of research land area
  • 17. Harvard’s Environmental Impact
  • 18. Harvard’s GHG Inventory: Annual Reporting 60+% growth in GHG emissions since 1992 Wide range in School GHG growth trends FY06: Cambridge/Allston campus = 74% Longwood Campus = 26% Buildings account for over 87% of emissions (to power, heat & cool) Three of Harvard’s 11 Schools account for 66% of campus emissions
  • 19. Harvard’s Green Campus Initiative
  • 20. Funding Models: Entrepreneurial Business Approach Total Full Time Staff FY01 1 FY02 4 FY03 8 FY04 11 FY05 11 FY06 16 FY07 19 FY08-FY09 24+
  • 21. Funding Models: Entrepreneurial Business Approach Base Program Total Annual Funding Full Time Staff University Savings FY01 $ 80,000 1 FY02 $264,000 4 $400,000 FY03 $648,000 8 $700,000 FY04 $890,000 11 $1.5 million FY05 $857,000 11 $3 million FY06 $1,155,000 16 $5 million FY07 $1,700,000 19 $6+million FY08-FY09 $2,200,000 24+ $7+million
  • 22. Funding Models: Entrepreneurial Business Approach Green Campus Loan Fund: $12 million interest-free capital for conservation projects Existing New Construction Buildings 5 year payback 10 year payback maximum maximum Lifecycle costing used Simple payback used $8.5+ million lent since 2001 200+ projects 30% average return on investment
  • 23. Capacities: Time, Attention and Expertise Harvard Green Campus Initiative: Organizational Chart 2000 Co-Chair Faculty, Harvard School of Public Health Prof. Jack Spengler Director, Leith Sharp Co-Chair Assoc. VP, Facilities & Environmental Services Tom Vautin a
  • 24. Capacities: Time, Attention and Expertise Harvard Green Campus Initiative: Organizational Chart 2000 Green Building Operations Green Building Design Co-Chair Faculty, Harvard School of Campus Occupant Engagement Programs Public Health Prof. Jack Spengler Environmental Procurement Director, 23+ Full-time Staff Residential Green Living Programs Leith Sharp 20 Part-time Renewable Energy students Co-Chair Assoc. VP, Facilities & HGCI Base Program Staff Environmental Services Tom Vautin HGCI Courses at Harvard Extension School •Sustainability – The Challenge of Changing Our Institutions •Green Building Design, Construction and Operations ♦ FY07Operating Cost = $1.6million ♦ Annual Savings = $6+ million & 90+ million pounds of CO2 20% Office of President and Provost & central administration sources.
  • 25. 10 Elements of Organizational Transformation 1.Change Attitudes and Assumptions 2.Engage People and Foster New Capacities 3.Assessment, Research and Development 4.Pilot and Expand New Practices 5.Process Quality Control & Continuous Improvement 6.Leverage Leadership 7.Reform Finance and Accounting Structures 8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention 9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks
  • 26. 1. Change Attitudes and Assumptions
  • 27. Building Trust Based Relationships TRUST Three Types of Relationship Models in Organizations Transaction Authority Reference: Professor Karen Stephenson, http://www.netform.com
  • 28. 1. Change Attitudes and Assumptions The Transformation of Hearts and Minds that Underpins Effective Organizational Transformation for Sustainability at Harvard There is no problem because….the planet is an infinite source of resources with an infinite capacity to absorb our pollution There is a problem but it’s not mine because…..what I do has little impact on the planet, I just don’t count, my influence is too small There is a problem, I am involved, I probably could do something except it’s so hard……I can’t get the funds, I don’t know how, I don’t have the time, I keep forgetting, my manager doesn’t seem to want it, there’s no reliable alternative, it’s too risky, I don’t get evaluated on it etc There is a problem and I am fully engaged in working on my part of the solution in every way possible!
  • 29. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities Occupant impacts on building operations & environmental impacts
  • 30. 2. Engage People Motivation and Foster New Capacities MOTIVATION There is much research to support the idea that learning is best served when “motivation is intrinsic” that is to say when the individual is self-motivated rather than externally motivated. Experience that has no emotional engagement are not likely to be effective in generating new mental representations. Gardener, H. (1999) The Disciplined Mind: What All Students Should Understand. New York: Simon & Schuster.
  • 31. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities PEER TO PEER PROGRAMS Harvard University Dining Services: Green Skillet Competition Inter-Dining Hall Competition: 500+Dining Staff In 2007 The winning kitchen reduced electricity use by 23%
  • 32. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities PEER TO PEER PROGRAMS Residential Green Living Programs 9,000+ students from the College, Harvard Business School, Harvard Law School, Kennedy School of Government To reduce the environmental impact of dorm life at Harvard through… • Peer education, and awareness. Major focuses • Practical projects in the dorms. • Electricity, heating, & water • Collaboration w/ administration to efficiency identify barriers to conservation. • Reduce waste through re- use and recycling • Sustainable dining
  • 33. In the College Quantified savings are now well over $400,000/year. • >13.8%reduction in electricity use of dorms by 2007 • >4% reduction in fuel for heating • 33% reduction in food waste • 25% increase in recycling • $50,000 annual water savings • >60% reduction in move-out trash • >$75,000/year of reusable items salvaged and resold by REP and Habitat
  • 34. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities Targeted Behavioral Change SHUT YOUR SASH COMPETITION Harvard Medical School Faculty of Arts and Sciences HMS Fume Hood quot;Shut the Sashquot; Campaign Average Sash Height & Energy Cost per Hood $2,500 14 Avg Energy Cost / Avg Sash Height 12 $2,000 Hood / year 10 (inches) $1,500 8 6 $1,000 4 $500 2 0 $0 Over $250,000 of WAB HIM Bldg C SGM Arm energy savings from Pre-Campaign Sash Height Building Post Campaign Sash Height this targeted Baseline avg cost / hood / year Post Campaign avg cost / hood / year competition
  • 35. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities Large Scale Social Marketing Campaigns 2007 OnlineServices – 3 complexes (1,800 tenants) – 10 REPs Harvard Real Estate Sustainability Pledge Last year over 8,000 8 dorms (700 students) – 4 REPs Harvard Law School – people signed! Harvard Business School – 5 dorms (420-students) – 6 REPs 5,700 people pledged to turn off computers and lights at night. - 5,400 people pledged to enable sleep mode on their computer. - 3,700 people pledged to buy at least 30% recycled paper. - 4,600 people pledged to double-side copies. - 3,821 people pledged to bring their own coffee mug.
  • 36. 2. Engage People and Foster New Capacities Certoon: Annual Campus Energy Reduction Cartoon Competition in the College
  • 37. 3. Assessment, Research and Development
  • 38. 3. Assessment, Research and Development What is the Cost of LEED? Over 20 LEED Projects at Harvard show that there are 34 credits and 6 prerequisites that can be achieved at no added cost if the process is managed effectively. Included in this number are 9 credits that all Harvard projects immediately get. 45 40 40 35 30 25 20 15 11 10 10 5 3 0 Silver = 33 Point is no cost and Potential cost impact, Point has cost Point has additional cost often given in Harvard but will result in reduced implication and an impact with strictly an Gold = 39 projects operations costs associated human environment benefit health / comfort / productivity benefit Platinum=52
  • 39. Building Energy Assessments, Tracking & Reporting HGCI has identified over 200 energy conservation measures in 60 building complexes within a 12 month period for Harvard Real Estate Service. Baseline Summary Peabody Terrace Apartments Square Feet Units Occupants Build Manager Org # UOS Bldg # 450849 495 696 Pam Cornell 53830 425 Heating Source Cooling Source Utilities Included in Rent Water Billing TRUE Blackstone Steam FALSE #2 Fuel Oil FALSE Water Chilled FALSE AC Window Water and Sewer TRUE FALSE Monthly FALSE Gas Natural FALSE #4 Fuel Oil FALSE FALSE Geothermal Electricity TRUE TRUEQuarterly Chiller On-site FALSE Electricity FALSE #6 Fuel Oil TRUE Heat TRUE 1 None TRUE Annual Usage / Utility Baseline Baseline Years Usage / SF Occupant Electricity (kWh) 2,265,043 FY 2006-2007 5.024 3254.372 Natural Gas (therms) 5,044 FY 2006-2007 0.011 7.248 Steam (MMBTU) 24,956 FY 2006-2007 0.055 35.856 Water (ccf) 31,023 FY 2006-2007 0.069 44.573 Chilled Water (Ton-Days) 0 - - - #2 Fuel Oil (gallons) 0 - - - #4 Fuel Oil (barrels) 0 - - - #6 Fuel Oil (barrels) 0 - - - Combined Heating (KBTU) 24,956,034 FY 2006-2007 55.353 35856.371 Total KBTU 33,189,118 FY 2006-2007 73.615 47685.514 Electricity Heating Normalized Annual Usage and Cost kWhs Normalized Annual Usage and Cost KBTU Cost Cost 3,000,000 800,000 30,000,000 700,000 700,000 600,000 2,500,000 25,000,000 600,000 2,000,000 500,000 500,000 20,000,000 Cost ($) kWhs Cost ($) KBTUs 1,500,000 400,000 400,000 15,000,000 300,000 300,000 1,000,000 200,000 10,000,000 200,000 500,000 100,000 5,000,000 100,000 0 0 Fiscal 2006 Fiscal 2007 Fiscal 2008 Fiscal 2009 Fiscal 2010 0 0 Water Chilled Water Normalized Annual Usage and Cost Ccfs Normalized Annual Usage and Cost Ton-Days Cost Cost 35,000 300,000 1 1 30,000 1 1 250,000 1 1 25,000 200,000 1 1 Cost ($) Ton-Days Cost ($) 20,000 Ccfs 1 1 150,000 15,000 1 1 100,000 0 0 10,000 0 0 5,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fiscal 2006 Fiscal 2007 Fiscal 2008 Fiscal 2009 Fiscal 2010 0 0
  • 40. Onsite Renewable Energy Big Belly Trash Compactors Photovoltaic Ground Source Heat Pumps Collecting oil for Harvard Building Mounted Solar Thermal Recycling truck Wind
  • 41. Technology Comparison PV Wind Solar Thermal $/20 yr $.25-.35 $.03-.12 $.24 kWh $/20 yr $400-550 $100-200 $70-350 MTCDE Note: costs are AFTER rebates for PV and wind and factored over 20 years Solar thermal is not eligible for MTC rebates
  • 42. 4. Pilot and Expand New Practices
  • 43. 4. Pilot and Expand New Practices Occupancy sensor driven temperature Setbacks Biodiesel in University Shuttles Ground Source Heat Pumps Green Cleaning
  • 44. 4. Pilot and Expand New Practices Harvard University Diesel Emission Controls For Construction Equipment
  • 45. Process to Implementation • Trial, Education, Buy-In, Meetings… Harvard Transportation Services Vehicle
  • 46. Harvard Emissions Spec • Retrofits - 60HP+ onsite 20+ working days • EPAs verified list, or approved by Harvard • Ultra Low Sulfur Deisel. Preference for biodiesel, ethanol • Anti-idling, equipment location, electric equipment
  • 47. Retrofitted Vehicles
  • 48. 4. Pilot and Expand New Practices Green Building at Harvard :History 2001: HGCI initiates first 3 pilot LEED projects 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 7 LEED Projects 16 LEED Projects 21 LEED Projects 26 LEED Projects 50+ LEED Projec 2 Certified 4 Certified 5 Certified 7 Certified 12 Certified 5 Registered 12 Registered 16 Registered 19 Registered 38 Registere
  • 49. Levels of LEED Ratings 52-69 points 39-51 points 33-38 points Green Buildings worldwide are certified with a voluntary, 26-32 points consensus-based rating system. USGBC has four levels of LEED. Test Source: www.usgbc.org
  • 50. Dunster / Mather Kitchen and Serveries LEED Silver Certified First Institution Kitchen to Achieve LEED, Dual-Flush Toilets, Melink Variable Speed Drive Stove Hoods, Composting System Harvard Dining Services
  • 51. Aldrich Hall LEED Silver Pending Campus Lighting Master Plan, Preferred Parking for Fuel Efficient Vehicles, Green Cleaning Program, high performance ventilation 13 Filters, 80% C&D Waste Diversion Harvard Business School
  • 52. 90 Mt. Auburn St. LEED Gold Certified Ground Source Heat Pumps, No Irrigation, Indoor Air Quality Testing Prior to Occupancy, Untreated Concrete Floors and Walls, Green Cleaning for All of HRES U&C, Photo by: Nathan Gauthier Photo by: Nathan Gauthier Harvard University Library
  • 53. First Science Center Seeking LEED Gold Highest energy performance goal of any lab design at Harvard, careful attention to materials selections, onsite stormwater re-use Allston Development
  • 54. 46 Blackstone LEED Platinum Certified Submitted to USGBC in September, 55 Points Pending – 52 Required for LEED Platinum, Highest energy performance of any Harvard LEED building, bioswale, energy efficient elevator University Operations Services
  • 55. Landmark Center, HSPH LEED Certified 42,000 Build-Out, Underfloor Air Distribution, Digitally controlled Lighting w/T-5 Lamps Harvard School of Public Health
  • 56. 5. Process Improvement
  • 57. 5. Process Improvement Did someone leave and Do we need some momentum lost? in time research? Is there some unfounded perception of risk or Do we need more misunderstanding management support? preventing engagement? Has it fallen off the agenda Did we consider life cycle due to other priorities? costs, rebates, grants, integrated design related Is the bigger picture savings etc? still being addressed? Does anyone have the Does something have to time to project manage be done and no else this properly? knows how to do it? Are we re-inventing the Are we missing someone wheel instead of using important at the table? what’s been done already? Continuously Diagnose and Address the Weakest Links in Every Process
  • 58. Process Quality Control & Continuous Improvement 5. Process Improvement Ten Commandments for Cost Effective Green Building Construction & Renovations 1. Commitment 2. Leadership 3. Accountability 4. Process Management 5. Integrated Design 6. Energy Modeling 7. Commissioning Plus 8. Specifications 9. Life Cycle Costing 10.Continuous Improvement
  • 59. 46 Blackstone LEED Platinum Certified Submitted to USGBC in September, 55 Points Pending – 52 Required for LEED Platinum, Highest energy performance of any Harvard LEED building, bioswale, energy efficient elevator University Operations Services
  • 60. Developing Stormwater Strategies . Original site consisted of 100% impervious surfaces
  • 61. 658 tons of asphalt were removed and recycled
  • 62. Demo of exterior structures to create open space and future Bioswale
  • 63. Creating a permeable surface for the courtyard Installing high-albedo pavers on stone base
  • 64. Bioremediation system for surface water treatment
  • 65. Bioswale treats all water from 25,000 s.f. parking lot
  • 66. Storm run-off on the site is reduced by 35% to 51% Drainage to municipal sewer system eliminated.
  • 67. A serious commitment to construction waste management 99% waste diversion through reuse and recycling
  • 68. Daylight and Views •Daylight access to over 75% of spaces •View access to over 90% of spaces
  • 69. Daylight and Views
  • 70. Energy Efficient Lighting Daylight and occupant sensing fluorescent lighting Full cut-off exterior lighting
  • 71. Plumbing 43% reduction in water use from EPAct Standards
  • 72. Thermal Insulation and Vapor Barrier Application of Icynene Foam
  • 73. Reflective Roofing and Operable Windows Window features: • Double pane, argon-filled low-e glass • U value .25 Roof Specifications: • Solar reflectance 65% • Emittance .92 • U values .024 to .032
  • 74. HVAC Design Strategy • Right-size the design: – capacities to match building envelope thermal performance • Minimize energy use in delivery systems – Air handler for ventilation only (100% fresh air) – Energy recovery from exhaust air (enthalpy wheel) – Fan-less valence units for space heating and cooling – Variable frequency drives on all pumps
  • 75. Energy Use Designed to be 40+ % more energy efficient than ASHRAE 90.1
  • 76. Mechanical Systems • Cooling: ground-source heat pumps • Heating: hot water from steam • DDC controls: – Outside air reset – Occupancy sensors – CO2 monitors – Variable air volume
  • 77. Air Handler/Heat Recovery System • Provides up to 5100 CFM of 100% outside air for ventilation • Enthaply energy recovery system is 80% efficient • Ventilation is demand controlled with occupancy and CO2 sensors
  • 78. Sustainable and Renewable Materials Concrete Counters Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) Certified Wood
  • 79. Sustainable Carpeting Materials Recycled, recyclable, PVC-free, low VOC carpet tiles Bamboo flooring Low VOC adhesives and sealants
  • 80. Reused Systems Furniture Refurbished furniture with recycled materials
  • 81. Remember this?
  • 82. And now…
  • 83. TRADITION DESIGN PROCESS A typical process involves a linear progression from the architect down to the engineers and finally the contractors. A strict hierarchy of communication is enforced by the project manager. Architects www.aangepastbouwen.nl Engineers www.hansa-klima.de Contractors
  • 84. Integrated Design An Integrated Design Process is a more iterative process that provides additional flexibility and dynamism in the engagement of all team members so that there is scope for ongoing learning and the capacity to address emergent features and strategies. The project team is still required to adhere to clear communication protocols to minimize conflict and confusion, however there are more deliberate opportunities for cross communication between team members. The design charrette is a key forum for integrated design. Architects Engineers Source: Leith Sharp 2008 Contractors
  • 85. Integrated Design Requires Inclusiveness and Collaboration Conventional Design Process Integrated Design Process Involves team members only when essential Inclusive from the outset Less time, energy, and collaboration exhibited Front-loaded — time and energy invested early in early stages More decisions made by fewer people Decisions influenced by broad team Linear process Iterative process Systems often considered in isolation Whole-systems thinking Limited to constrained optimization Allows for full optimization Diminished opportunity for synergies Seeks synergies Emphasis on up-front costs Life-cycle costing Typically finished when construction is Process continues through post-occupancy complete Source: ‘Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process’. Prepared Busby Perkins+Will, Stantec Consulting
  • 86. The Integrated Design Process is as Much a Mindset as it is a Process
  • 87. The Integrated Design Process is as Much a Mindset as it is a Process Mindset Principle Strategies Inclusion & collaboration Broad collaborative team • Careful team formation Outcome oriented Well-defined scope, • Team building vision, goals & objectives Trust & transparency Effective & open communication • Facilitation training for team • Expert facilitation Open-mindedness & Innovation and synthesis • Visioning charrettes (with creativity comprehensive preparation) • Brainstorming Rigor & attention to detail Systematic decision-making • Goals and targets matrix • Decision-making tools Continuous learning • Iterative process with feedback • Post-occupancy evaluation and improvement cycles • Comprehensive commissioning Source: ‘Roadmap for the Integrated Design Process’. Prepared Busby Perkins+Will, Stantec Consulting
  • 88. The Management Challenge of Integrated Design The integrated design process requires skillful management. A number of integrated design process management recommendations include: Ask for it up front, include it in the RFPs, Owners Project Requirements etc Select design team members with experience in integrated design where possible. Include design team members at the right time, such as operational representatives, commissioning agent, sustainability consultant, cost estimator, controls engineer etc Engage the team in a process of internalizing all sustainability and project goals. Establish an early dynamic of trust and mutual understanding across the team as the foundation of effective collaboration. Undertake a design charrette with full team participation to develop strategies and allocate roles and responsibilities Carefully and consistently diagnose when to bring the team together, when to drive them to collaborate and when to implement linear task sequence management. Continuously ask why particular strategies are being recommended and what other options have been considered Implement modeling strategies & life cycle costing to evaluate impacts of design options Ensure the effective engagement of operations staff, the commissioning agent to ensure the design meets operational needs
  • 89. 6. Leverage Different Leadership Contributions
  • 90. 6. Leverage Different Leadership Contributions Grass Roots CONFIDENCE & CAPACITY Students, building Managers, •Evidence facilities staff, project managers, •Confidence custodial, transport & procurement staff •Business base for green campus organization Top Level Leadership AUTHORITY President, Provost, Deans, •Legitimacy VP’s •Priority •Mood/culture •Goals Upper Middle Management SYSTEMS INTEGRATION 2nd Level Deans, Associate VP’s, •Capital Approvals Systems CFOs, COO - Planning •Finance & Accounting •University Contracts
  • 91. 6. Leverage Different Leadership Contributions Leverage Leadership Harvard-Wide Green Building Guidelines: Development Process Development and Approval Process • 2001-4: LEED piloted and numerous projects underway • 2004: President Summers: Approves Sustainability Principles including a commitment to integrate sustainability into capital approvals process. • 2004-7: LEED project experience expanded across the University • Feb 2007: University Construction Managers Council asked HGCI to establish interfaculty sub-committee to draft guidelines • March – Oct: Guidelines developed by HGCI and interfaculty committee over 11 meetings
  • 92. 6. Leverage Different Leadership Contributions Leverage Leadership Harvard-Wide Green Building Guidelines: Development Process Development and Approval Process: Oct-Dec 2007 • Financial Deans: Approval • Capital Projects Review Committee: Approval • University Construction Managers Council: Approval • Administrative Deans: Approval • University Construction Managers Council : Approve final draft • President Faust: Notified of completion and adoption Ongoing Efforts: • Green Building Guidelines Committee: Tasked to review LEED Gold option through 2008 • Harvard Green Campus Initiative: Tasked to integrate guidelines into University contracts & standards, provide training and project support to all Schools and Departments
  • 93. 7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures
  • 94. Accounting Structures Are Getting in the Way of Best Financial Practice Barrier: Accounting structures are driving Capital Budget inefficient design and Maintenance Budget Managers operations by limiting Managers the appropriate movement of investments and savings Utility Budget Human Resources Managers Managers
  • 95. 7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures Green Campus Loan Fund $12 Million Fund - interest free capital for high performance projects Existing Buildings New Construction 5 Year Payback Maximum 10 Year payback maximum Full project funded Cost premium of high Can bundle projects performance option funded Simple payback used Life Cycle Costing used
  • 96. 7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures Green Campus Loan Fund $12 Million Fund - interest free capital for high performance projects Existing Buildings New Construction $12 million interest-free capital for conservation projects +$8.5 million lent since 2001 ~200 projects 30% average return on investment
  • 97. 7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures Provide Financial Access to the Champions
  • 98. 7. Reform Finance and Accounting Structures HARVARD Green Building Guidelines • Capital projects exceeding $5 million will seek minimum LEED Silver certification. • Harvard University requires a number of LEED credits to be treated as pre-requisites (including minimum 6 energy credits ~2030 Challenge) • An “Integrated Design” approach is to be adopted. • Life Cycle Costing assessment is to be conducted throughout the project • Energy modeling is required • Adopt an ongoing commissioning approach for the life of the building.
  • 99. Life Cycle Costing A method of project evaluation in which all costs arising from owning, operating, maintaining and ultimately disposing of a project over an agreed period are accounted for and converted into today’s dollars. In short, life cycle costing allows for the consideration of medium and long term cost implications of today’s decisions. When can it be used? ► New Construction ► Major Renovations ► Capital Projects ► Routine Replacements or Upgrades ► Day to day purchases that incur any ongoing costs
  • 100. When Should We Introduce the LCC Approach in the Building Design Process? Get in Early and Get in Ugly! ( Favourite quote from GRT!)
  • 101. Simplest Use of Life Cycle Costing Present Value of the Present Value of Investment Costs + Operational Costs Present Value = All costs in today’s $ Provided by Bob Charette
  • 102. How Should LCC Be Used in the Decision Making Process? 1. To compare different options (e.g. ground source heat pumps versus natural gas furnace) 2. To determine financially optimal efficiency level (e.g. amount of insulation) 3. To identify medium and long term savings for potential reinvestment or immediate justification of integrated design solutions
  • 103. 1. To compare different options (e.g. ground source heat pumps versus natural gas furnace)
  • 104. Vacuum Pump Replacement Study Escalation Discount Rate 8.00% Rate 3.50% Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Name Water Seal Dry Claw Description Existing Replacement Annual Utility Cost $ 38,768.20 $ 15,030.41 Annual Maintenance Cost $ 440.00 $ 190.00 First Cost $ - $ 46,500.00 Year 10 Replacement $ 47,340.00 $ 61,147.50 Year 20 Replacement $ 59,940.00 $ 77,422.50 Years 20 20 Total Net Present Value $ 808,819.73 $ 457,403.89 Savings $ 351,415.84
  • 105. Life Cycle Cost Analysis Scenario 6: >Break Even Annual Costs (5.58 MMBTU/week) >Malkin Perspective General Assumptions Maintenance Escalation 3.50% Discount Rate 5.75% Gas Boilers Central Steam (oil/gas) FY2007 Rates $3,725 FY07 Maintenance Cost $0 Annual Gas Usage Gas (per therm) $1.55 3,946 0 (therms) Steam (per MMBTU) Annual Steam Usage [includes fuel, non-fuel, $29.00 0 339 (MMBtu) and distribution] $9,841 FY2007 Annual $9,841 Maintenance Gas Repair Net Annual Present Value Present Value Net Annual Repair Steam Maintenance Cost Cost Cost Cost Annual Costs Year Annual Costs Cost Cost Cost Cost $3,855 $6,116 $9,972 $9,429 FY 2008 1 $9,694 $10,252 $10,252 $0 $3,990 $6,353 $10,343 $9,249 FY 2009 2 $9,629 $10,768 $10,768 $0 $4,130 $6,550 $10,680 $9,031 FY 2010 3 $9,564 $11,311 $11,311 $0 $4,275 $6,787 $11,062 $8,845 FY 2011 4 $9,497 $11,877 $11,877 $0 $4,424 $7,024 $11,448 $8,656 FY 2012 5 $9,435 $12,478 $12,478 $0 $4,579 $7,270 $11,849 $8,472 FY 2013 6 $9,234 $12,915 $12,915 $0 $4,739 $7,524 $12,263 $8,292 FY 2014 7 $9,038 $13,367 $13,367 $0 $4,905 $7,787 $12,693 $8,115 FY 2015 8 $8,846 $13,835 $13,835 $0 $5,077 $8,060 $13,137 $7,943 FY 2016 9 $8,657 $14,319 $14,319 $0 $5,254 $8,342 $7,053 $20,650 $11,806 FY 2017 10 $8,876 $15,525 $705 $14,820 $0 $5,438 $8,634 $14,072 $7,608 FY 2018 11 $8,293 $15,339 $15,339 $0 $5,629 $8,936 $14,565 $7,446 FY 2019 12 $8,116 $15,876 $15,876 $0 $5,826 $9,249 $15,075 $7,288 FY 2020 13 $7,944 $16,431 $16,431 $0 $6,030 $9,573 $15,602 $7,133 FY 2021 14 $7,775 $17,006 $17,006 $0 $6,241 $9,908 $16,148 $6,981 FY 2022 15 $7,609 $17,602 $17,602 $0 $6,459 $10,255 $16,714 $6,833 FY 2023 16 $7,447 $18,218 $18,218 $0 $6,685 $10,613 $17,299 $6,687 FY 2024 17 $7,289 $18,855 $18,855 $0 $6,919 $10,985 $17,904 $6,545 FY 2025 18 $7,134 $19,515 $19,515 $0 $7,161 $11,369 $18,531 $6,406 FY 2026 19 $6,982 $20,198 $20,198 $0 $7,412 $11,767 $9,994 $29,173 $9,536 FY 2027 20 $7,159 $21,900 $995 $20,905 $0 20 Year Net $162,302 $168,219 Present Cost
  • 106. 2. To determine financially optimal efficiency level (e.g. amount of insulation)
  • 107. How Much Insulation? Inches 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Upfront Cost $45 $50 $55 $60 $65 $70 $75 $80 $85 $90 $95 $100 Energy Use 4 3.2 2.56 2.05 1.64 1.31 1.05 0.84 0.67 0.54 0.43 0.34
  • 108. How Much Insulation? Energy Cash Year Per Energy 20 Insulation 20 Year Years 0 Inches -$63.43 5 100.00 1 Inches -$36.77 4.00 80.00 2 Inches -$16.14 3.20 64.00 3 Inches -$0.73 2.56 51.20 4 Inches $9.03 2.05 40.96 5 Inches $13.64 1.64 32.77 6 Inches $14.12 1.31 26.21 7 Inches $11.30 1.05 20.97 Using an integrated design 8 Inches $5.83 0.84 16.78 approach you 9 Inches -$1.73 0.67 13.42 may be able 10 Inches -$8.66 0.54 10.74 eliminate mechanical 11 Inches -$12.57 0.43 8.59 equipment to justify this cost
  • 109. 3. To identify medium and long term savings for potential reinvestment or immediate justification of integrated design solutions
  • 110. A Financial Model for Climate Neutrality
  • 111. YALE: Campus GHG Reduction Framework: Progress to Date A nnual C am pus Em issions Metric Tons of Carbon Dioxide Equivalent 5 Y 0 0 OR E -2 C T PR AJ E TR C O N S E R VA TIO N YA L E A N N O U N C EM EN T RE R E N EW A B LE DU E N ER G Y CT IO N PA TH IF P R O G R E SS TO D AT E LI NE C A R BO N O FFS ET • 8 % r educ tion f rom 04 p eak AR P R O JEC TS • 1 3 % below Pre -2005 Tra jecto ry G O AL •1. 5% C am p us G S F Incre ase sinc e ‘05 Ivy Plus Sustainability Meeting 2008 Campus GHG Report
  • 112. CORNELL: GHG Reduction Plan and Strategies 400 Emissions without Energy Initiatives & 350 CHPP (2000-2012) GHG Emissions (metric kilo-tons) Status Quo 300 Kyoto Target by 2012 Green Development 250 Energy Conservation 200 Actuals 150 Fuel Mix 100 Projected 2007-2012 with CCHPP in 2010 50 Renewable Energy / Offsets 0 2000 2005 2010 2015 Future: 2025 2030 2035 2020 Climate Neutral 2040 Year Ivy Plus Sustainability Meeting 2008 Campus GHG Report
  • 113. Accounting Reform for Building Climate Neutrality Adopting 20 years net present value accounting framework for evaluating carbon neutrality investment and return options for each building. Track and reinvest savings from energy demand reductions to fund onsite renewable energy, fuel switching, additional efficiency efforts and carbon offsets.
  • 114. Costing Case Study Building Name Leverett Towers F & G Department Faculty of Arts and Sciences Description Complex of 2 11-story towers Age Built 1959; renovations every 4 years Size 121,697 square feet Occupancy 158 suites, 20 tutor apartments; 300 residents Demographics Undergraduates, graduate tutors Lease format Academic year appointments; temporary summer housing Building systems and Heat/ventilation: Steam to forced air and radiant heat; utilities Hot water: steam Air conditioning: window units Electricity: tutor kitchenette appliances Natural gas: dryers (1990-2001 only) 2006 GHG emissions 1537 MTCDE 114
  • 115. Costing Case Study (Research provided by Debra Shepard 2008) Leverett Towers Investment Summary % of Investment Period MTCDE/yr Component Portfolio Energy Conservation Measures Renewable Energy Technology 17% 2007-2009 255 (onsite) 3% 2007-2009 49 Fuel Switch 22% 2012-2020 345 Offsets 58% 2012-2020 888 Behavior Program ((2%)) 2007-2020 ((33))
  • 116. Costing Case Study (Research provided by Debra Shepard 2008) Leverett Towers Investment Summary % of Investment Period MTCDE/yr Component Portfolio Energy Conservation Measures Renewable Energy Technology 17% 2007-2009 255 (onsite) 3% 2007-2009 49 Fuel Switch 22% 2012-2020 345 Offsets 58% 2012-2020 888 Behavior Program ((2%)) 2007-2020 ((33)) erette Towers Financial Summary for Climate Neutrality Leverett Tow ers: Net present value Climate Neutral Portfolio at 2020 Financial Category through 2020 17% Investments (ECM, RET, Fuel Switch, Behavior) ($1,068,958) 3% ECMs RETs Savings (ECM, RET, and Behavior) $1,142,947 58% Fuel Sw itch 22% Offsets Carbon Offset Purchases ($68,268) TOTAL PROGRAM Net Present Value $5,721 116
  • 117. Designing Programs for the Way We Are 8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention by Institutionalizing New Practices
  • 118. Designing Programs for the Way We Are 8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention by Institutionalizing New Practices Conscious Engagement The findings of many studies suggest that the conscious self “plays a causal role only 5% of the time” There is an active effort on behalf of the mind to make what is conscious unconscious as quickly as possible. While conscious choice and guidance are needed to perform new tasks, after some repetition, conscious choice quickly drops out and unconscious habit takes over, freeing up precious reserves of conscious awareness. Bargh, J. A. and Chartrand, T.L. (1999) The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psycologist, 54 (7) 462-479
  • 119. Designing Programs for the Way We Are 8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention by Institutionalizing New Practices Conscious Engagement The findings of many studies suggest that the conscious self “plays a causal role only 5% of the time” There is an active effort on behalf of the mind to make what is conscious unconscious as quickly as possible. While conscious choice and guidance are needed to perform new tasks, after some repetition, conscious choice quickly drops out and unconscious habit takes over, freeing up precious reserves of conscious awareness. Bargh, J. A. and Chartrand, T.L. (1999) The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psycologist, 54 (7) 462-479 Implications for Creating a Learning Organization •Make it a habit ASAP •Institutionalize using organizational systems ASAP 5% Conscious Behavior
  • 120. 8. Remove the Need for Conscious Attention Designing Programs for the Way We Are by Institutionalizing New Practices EXAMPLES: •Adopt new financial approval requirements •Integrate new practices into contracts and specifications ASAP •Redefine position descriptions, performance reviews & training programs •Implement prompts & visible cues to trigger behavior (signs, bins, emails) •Formalize new annual reporting requirements •Establish routines of regular meetings and agenda items
  • 121. 9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks
  • 122. 9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks Cambridge vs Longwood Emissions 247,224 250,000 233,663 220,407 219,104 204,449 200,000 145,572 150,000 MTCDE Cambridge Longwood 110,995 114,054 100,000 85,914 Life Cycle Costing 63,293 52,930 48,723 50,000 0 Finance and Accounting Frameworks FY90 FY02 FY04 FY04 FY05 FY06 GHG Reduction Targets Green Building Standards
  • 123. Summary of Ivy GHG Commitments in 2008 Brown University 42% below 2007 baseline by 2020 Columbia University 30% below 2005 levels by 2017 [in line with PlaNYC] Cornell University Signed Presidents Climate Commitment. Will have strategic plan including timetable in 2009 (already have 7% below 1990) Harvard University 30% below 2006 by 2016 including all growth (which equates to a net 50% reduction) University of Pennsylvania Signed Presidents Climate Commitment. Will have strategic plan including timetable Sept 2009 Princeton University 1990 levels by 2020 (18% reduction from 2007) Yale University 43% reduction from 2005 (10% below 1990) by 2020 Ivy Plus Sustainability Meeting 2008 Campus GHG Report
  • 124. 9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks Greenhouse Gas Reduction Strategy The Allston Sustainability Guidelines chart a course for Harvard to reduce the emissions of its new campus in Allston by over 80% compared to a conventional campus. A llston E m issions R eduction S trategy B uildings w ill use 30,000 40% less energy C onventional D evelopm ent than stipulated by 25,000 A S H R A E 90.1 Allston Emissions (MTCE) E nergy generation 20,000 w ill be 30% m ore efficient than current H arvard standards 15,000 22.5% of A llston's energy dem and w ill 10,000 be provided by renew able, G H G - S ustainable D evelopm ent neutral sources 5,000 50% of rem aining em issions w ill be 0 offset 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 Y e ar
  • 125. 9. Adopt Accountability Frameworks 4 components associated with new development [First Science as a prototype]: 100 #1: Building 90 Design: Key for climate change: Buildings 40% 80 more efficient incremental reduction of CO2 footprint Percent of GHG Emissions 70 60 #2: Efficient energy #3. Renewable energy generation : strategies: On and off 50 site renewables: 22.5% 30% less carbon intense (E.g. of energy demand 40 cogen) #4. Purchase offsets: 30 Carbon offsets 50% 42% 20 10 14% 0 2010 2026 Produced by HGCI. Modified/adapted by ADG. November 2007
  • 126. 10. Institutionalize Continuous Improvement Trial Recommend Trial Recommendations Trial Recommend Trial Recommendations Evaluation Design Process Evaluation Design Process Evaluation Design Process Evaluation Design Process Building Project Building Project Building Project Building Project
  • 127. Harvard Campus-Wide Sustainability Principles Sustainability Commitment Harvard University is committed to continuous improvement in: • Demonstrating institutional practices that promote sustainability. • Promoting health, productivity and safety through building design & campus planning. • Enhancing the health of campus ecosystems & increasing the diversity of native species. • Developing planning tools to support triple bottom line decision-making. • Encouraging environmental inquiry and institutional learning throughout the University. • Establishing indicators for sustainability for monitoring & continuous improvement. Implementation Commitment • Continue Harvard Green Campus Initiative “As we plan for the future, these principles will set a strong course • Integrate into Harvard’s Capital Approvals process that will benefit Harvard and • Establish indicators for monitoring progress promote responsible growth and environmental quality in our • Integrate into annual financial reporting processes community.” President Lawrence H. Summers, Harvard University Gazette, October 14 2004
  • 128. To Learn More About The Harvard Green Campus Initiative: Contact: Leith_Sharp@harvard.edu Visit our website www.greencampus.harvard.edu We offer Distance learning courses through Harvard Extension School: ENVR –E117 Organizational Change for Sustainability. ENVR –E119 Green Building Design, Construction and Operations See: http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~envre117/ http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~envre119/