National Energy Trends: How do YOU Measure Success?
•
1 like•281 views
Sightlines sustainability expert Jeff Murphy explores national energy performance trends. See the trends for energy use, energy use per square foot, and energy use per campus user and learn how some campuses are setting themselves apart in reducing their numbers.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to National Energy Trends: How do YOU Measure Success?
Similar to National Energy Trends: How do YOU Measure Success? (20)
More from Sightlines
More from Sightlines (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
National Energy Trends: How do YOU Measure Success?
- 1. 1 National Energy Trends: How do YOU Measure Success Presented by: Jeff Murphy, Manager of Go‐Green Services Sightlines, LLC University of Hartford University of Idaho University of Illinois at Chicago University of Illinois at Urbana‐Champaign The University of Maine University of Maine at Augusta University of Maine at Farmington University of Maine at Machias University of Maine at Presque Isle University of Maine at Fort Kent University of Maryland University of Massachusetts Amherst University of Massachusetts Dartmouth University of Massachusetts Lowell University of Michigan University of Minnesota University of Mississippi Medical Center University of Missouri University of Missouri ‐ Kansas City University of Missouri ‐ St. Louis University of New Hampshire University of New Haven University of North Texas University of Notre Dame University of Oregon University of Pennsylvania University of Portland University of Redlands The University of Rhode Island, Narragansett Bay The University of Rhode Island, Feinstein Providence The University of Rhode Island, Kingston University of Rochester University of San Diego University of San Francisco University of St. Thomas (TX) University of Southern Maine University of Southern Mississippi University of the Pacific University of the Sciences in Philadelphia University of Vermont Upper Iowa University Utica College Virginia Commonwealth University Virginia Department of General Services Washburn University
- 2. 2 Sightlines Profile – who we are and what we do Working with 231 institutions in 36 states; analyzing over 835 million GSF annually Represents State System Represents Flagship Institutions Analysis based on: • Common Vocabulary • Consistent Methodology • Context Through Benchmarking 2
- 3. 3 Agenda 1. Why energy? 2. How are you measuring your success? 3. How do we measure your success – a family of metrics 4. National trends across these metrics 5. Who is leading the pack and how are they doing it? 3
- 4. 4 Energy as the institutional intersection Building Operations Energy Use Program Demands Campus Sustainability Capital Investment Occupant Engagement Operating Budget
- 5. 5 Campus GHG sources Effective energy management is critical to sustainable campus operations Scope 1 – Direct GHGs •On-Campus Stationary (Fossil Fuels & Biomass) •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 •Ground Travel •Solid Waste •Wastewater •Paper •Transmission & Distribution Losses 60‐80% of a “typical” campus’ GHGs are from energy 5
- 6. 6 Traditional ways of measuring success on energy No single metric can tell the entire story of campus energy management 6 HDD/CDD
- 7. 7 Evaluating comprehensive success Identifying a family of metrics Total MMBTU •Risk Exposure •Resiliency •Cost Savings •Social/Enviro. Benefits BTU/GSF •Operational Efficiency BTU/Student •Efficient Space Utilization 7
- 8. 8 National trends in higher education How do each of these trends impact our family of energy metrics? 1.8% 1.6% 1.4% 1.2% 1.0% 0.8% 0.6% 0.4% 0.2% 0.0% Annual Growth in GSF 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2.96 2.95 2.94 2.93 2.92 2.91 2.90 2.89 2.88 Increasing Building Complexity 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 425 420 415 410 405 400 395 Increasing Density Factor 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Users/ 100K GSF Tech Rating (1‐5) 8 Drives BTUs Higher Drives BTU/GSF Higher Pushes BTU/FTE Lower
- 9. Institution Count: 106 Average: 15% increase Median: 12% increase Range: 3% ‐ 75% increase Average Additional Cost Since 2006: 9 Gross energy use The most challenging energy metric to reduce Total MMBTU Energy Consumption 35% 19% 46% Decreasing Flat Increasing Total MMBTU Institution Count: 82 Average: 12% decrease Median: 9% decrease Range: 3% ‐ 51% decrease Average Energy Savings Since 2006: $2.62M *Decreasing is ‐3% or less since FY2006; Flat is ‐2% to +2% since FY2006; Increasing is +3% or more since FY2006 $5.48M 9 Database Average: +3% since 2006
- 10. Institution Count: 71 Average: 12% increase Median: 9% increase Range: 3% ‐ 41% increase Average Additional Costs Since 2006: 10 Operational efficiency The traditional benchmark of success Total BTU/GSF Energy Consumption 51% 31% 18% Decreasing Flat Increasing BTU/GSF Institution Count: 117 Average: 13% decrease Median: 10% decrease Range: 3% ‐ 46% decrease Average Energy Savings Since 2006: $4.12M *Decreasing is ‐3% or less since FY2006; Flat is ‐2% to +2% since FY2006; Increasing is +3% or more since FY2006 $3.59M 10 Database Average: ‐3% since 2006
- 11. Institution Count: 69 Average: 14% increase Median: 11% increase Range: 3% ‐ 65% increase Average Additional Costs: Since 2006 11 Efficient space utilization Adding students won’t necessarily lead to higher energy usage Total BTU/Student Energy Consumption 57% 30% 13% Decreasing Flat Increasing BTU/Student Institution Count: 131 Average: 16% decrease Median: 14% decrease Range: 3% ‐ 53% decrease Average Energy Savings Since 2006: $5.73M *Decreasing is ‐3% or less since FY2006; Flat is ‐2% to +2% since FY2006; Increasing is +3% or more since FY2006 $1.08M 11 Database Average: ‐5% since 2006
- 12. 12 The “Triple Crown” in energy reductions Substantial portion of our database is reducing in all three categories Database Achievement in Energy Metrics 30% 15% 24% 31% Decreasing in All 3 Decreasing in 2 Decreasing in 1 Decreasing in 0 Institution Count: 69 “The Reducers” 12 Identified the top 10 in each category Found 4 overlapping schools “Elite Reducers”
- 13. 13 Profiling the “Reducers”
- 14. 14 Where are these “Reducer” institutions located? “Reducers” are geographically diverse “The Reducers” “The Elite Reducers” States w/o Sightlines Members
- 15. 15 What type of institution are these “Reducers” 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 “Reducers” by Type of Institution Private Public “Elite Reducer” Institution
- 16. 16 How heavily utilized are the “Reducers” buildings? “Reducers” building utilizations are quite diverse Sightlines Distribution Database Distribution: Density Factor 21 36 3 9 Users/100K GSF “Elite Reducer” Institution
- 17. 17 What size are these “Reducer” institutions? “Reducers” group diverse in institution size: 49K – 23M GSF 20 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 “Reducers” by Size Category Under 1M GSF 1 ‐ 2M GSF 2 ‐ 5M GSF Over 5M GSF “Elite Reducer” Institution
- 18. 18 Campus expansion impedes gross energy reductions Limiting campus expansion is critical to reducing energy usage 10% 5% 0% ‐5% ‐10% ‐15% ‐20% Campus Expansion vs. Energy Reductions Campus Expansion by Size Category Under 1M GSF 1 ‐ 2M GSF 2 ‐ 5M GSF Over 5M GSF Energy Reductions by Size Category % Change Since 2006
- 19. 19 Profiling the “Elite Reducers”
- 20. 20 Elite Reducers: Cheyney University of Pennsylvania 1M GSF, declined 9% since FY06 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 180 160 140 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 MMBTUs in Thousands Gross Energy Use and Cost Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF Since 2006: 51% Reduction in Gross Energy Use Avoided $1.7M in Energy Costs Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution 2006 2011 Database Average Campus GSF in Thousands Keys to Success •Centralized Decentralized •ESCo Partnership •Envelope Upgrades •Variable Speed Drives/ Variable Air Volumes •New Energy Management System
- 21. 21 Elite Reducers: Olin College located in New England 400K GSF and flat since FY06, but increased campus population by 26% 450 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 MMBTUs in Thousands Gross Energy Use and Cost Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF Since 2006: 42% Reduction in Gross Energy Use Avoided $2.2M in Energy Costs Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution 2011 Database Average Campus GSF in Thousands 2006 Keys to Success •Variable Speed Drives •Autoflame Technology •Occupancy Sensors •Occupant Engagement
- 22. 22 Elite Reducer: Delta State University located in MS 1.7M GSF with some fluctuation since FY07 1,800 1,600 1,400 1,200 1,000 800 600 400 200 0 250 200 150 100 50 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 MMBTUs in Thousands Gross Energy Use and Cost Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF Since 2007: 39% Reduction in Gross Energy Use Avoided $3.3M in Energy Costs Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution 2011 Database Average Campus GSF in Thousands 2007 Keys to Success •Infrastructure Replacement •Envelope Upgrades •Lighting Upgrades •Set Backs/ Shut Downs •Space Management
- 23. 23 Elite Reducer: Cape Cod Community College in MA 340K GSF and flat since FY07, but increased student population by 7% 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 MMBTUs in Thousands Gross Energy Use and Cost Fossil MMBTU Electric MMBTU Campus GSF Since 2007: 25% Reduction in Gross Energy Use Avoided $2.9M in Energy Costs Total BTU/GSF – Database Distribution 2011 Database Average Campus GSF in Thousands 2007 Keys to Success •Heat Pumps •Lighting Upgrades – Interior/Exterior •Occupancy Sensors •Shut Downs •Removal of Vestibule Heaters
- 24. 24 What’s the common thread – physical profile? All of these institutions have limited their growth in campus GSF Tech Rating – Database Distribution Density Factor– Database Distribution % of GSF Over 25 Yrs – Database Distribution Cheyney Olin Delta State Cape Cod
- 25. 25 What’s the common thread – project spending? High capital spend is not a pre‐requisite for success Cheyney Olin Delta State Cape Cod 0.41 1.61 2.81 4.01 5.21 6.41 7.62 8.82 10.02 11.22 12.42 13.62 14.83 16.03 17.23 Project Spending – Database Distribution $/GSF
- 26. 26 What’s the common thread – project selection? Elite Reducers are prioritizing investments into building systems and envelopes 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Capital Project Selection Database Average Envelope/Mechanical/Utility Infra. Space Renewal and Programming Updates
- 27. 27 What is the common thread – people & process? Elite Reducers creating culture of energy management supported by policy LEED‐NC & LEED‐EBOM X X ESCo Partnership X X Energy Management Staff X X X Policy Incentives X X X 27
- 28. 28 National Energy Trends – key takeaways You Can’t Manage What You Don’t Measure – Comprehensively: •Track and evaluate energy progress through a family of metrics to identify and execute all opportunities Keep Up With The Jones – You Can Do It: •Nearly 70 schools are reducing across all 3 energy metrics •Success is occurring at all types of institutions all across the country No Silver Bullet – Substantial Capital Not Always Required: •Success does require management for change: •Fact‐based targets •Buy‐in and process •Clear policy incentives 28
- 29. 29 Questions & Discussion For More Info Contact Us: Jeff Murphy, Manager of Go‐Green Services Phone: 845‐790‐9244 Email: jmurphy@sightlines.com 29
Editor's Notes
- Sightlines Profile Slide
- Database median change is a 1% increase in Gross MMBTU since 2006
- Database median is a 3% decrease in BTU/GSF
- Database median is 5% decrease in BTU/Student
- Space Management – working with registrar during summer to push classes into fewer buildings and shutting the rest down