sustainability metrics 101
Post on 18-Dec-2014
381 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
© 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
The 5 steps to benchmarking
Consistency
Accuracy
NormalizationPeer Group
Context
Compare with Confidence
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
The 5 steps to benchmarking
Consistency
Accuracy
NormalizationPeer Group
Context
Compare with Confidence
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
The 5 steps to benchmarking
Consistency
Accuracy
NormalizationPeer Group
Context
Compare with Confidence
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
Selecting the right peer group for you
What makes your campus different?
•Size & Mechanical Complexity
•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
Selecting the right peer group for you
What makes your campus different?
•Size & Mechanical Complexity
•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
Selecting the right peer group for you
What makes your campus different?
•Size & Mechanical Complexity
•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
The 5 steps to benchmarking
Consistency
Accuracy
NormalizationPeer Group
Context
Compare with Confidence
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 – drivers
19
© Sightlines 2010
Metrics for campus sustainability – reinvestment
20
© 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 – traditional
Electricity22
Fossil Fuel
© 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
top related