TOWARDS A MORE SUSTAINABLE CAMPUS:

A Menu of Specific Options for the University of Maryland

Environmental Policy WorkshopSchool of Public PolicyUniversity of Maryland

June 2009

[This page intentionally left blank]

2

PREFACE

This report was prepared by the policy analysis workshop at the School of Public Policy of the University of Maryland. The policy analysis workshop is a course in the master’s program of the School. Each student devotes a full semester of course work to the study of an important public policy issue. This year there were six masters students with undergraduate majors ranging from film studies to political science to civil engineering.

The combined efforts of the students amounted to more than 750 hours, including review of the sustainability literature, review of the sustainability efforts of other universities, meetings with College Park officials dealing with sustainability issues, and other methods of inquiry. The re-port was prepared in consultation with the University of Maryland Office of Sustainability. The Office of Sustainability does not necessarily agree with each recommendation developed in the report. Professor Robert H. Nelson of the environmental policy program of the School of Public Policy supervises the environmental section of the policy analysis workshop.

The report develops a menu of possible specific concrete steps to improve the sustainability of the College Park campus. For each possible step, a short memo is presented that provides a description of the following:

Current Status on CampusBest Practices at other Universities and other InstitutionsAlternativesCosts/Issues Recommendations

These 38 memos will be made available to top administrators of the University for their consideration. They are assembled here in one document to provide a broader picture of a full set of sustainability actions available at present to the University. There are admittedly many other steps that could be taken to advance the sustainability of the College Park campus. They could not all be examined, however, within the limits of time and resources available to the environmental policy workshop.

The memos are organized according to the following areas of University operations:

1. Energy Efficiency2. Stormwater 3. Lawns and Landscaping4. Transportation 5. Dining and Other Student Services

The Executive Summary presents the principal recommendations. The Executive Summary and the full report are available on the web under “Faculty Papers” and “Robert Nelson” at www.publicpolicy.umd.edu.

3

Contributing Students

Laurel BallJohn CogginChristina HeshmatpourMike LancasterJoanna MauerSean Williamson

4

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................7INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................15CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY...........................25

MEMO 1: Green Purchasing.....................................................................................................27MEMO 2: Copy Paper...............................................................................................................29MEMO 3: Green Cleaning.........................................................................................................32MEMO 4: Endowment Transparency........................................................................................34MEMO 5: Green Investing........................................................................................................36

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY.................................39MEMO 6: Dorm Electricity Use Competition...........................................................................41MEMO 7: Sustainability Dorm Competition............................................................................44MEMO 8: Occupancy Lighting Sensors....................................................................................47MEMO 9: Smart Meters............................................................................................................49MEMO 10: Fume Hoods...........................................................................................................52MEMO 11: “Solar Power” for Clothes Drying.........................................................................54MEMO 12: Geothermal Heat Pumps........................................................................................57MEMO 13: Energy Performance Contracting...........................................................................60MEMO 14: State Budgetary Treatment of Energy Saving Investments...................................63MEMO 15: Renewable Energy Certificates.............................................................................66

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR STORMWATER.............................................69MEMO 16: Impervious Surfaces...............................................................................................71MEMO 17: Green Infrastructure...............................................................................................74MEMO 18: Rain Barrels............................................................................................................76

MEMO 19: Construction Site Stormwater Management……………………………………...78MEMO 20: Selling Water Quality Credits................................................................................80

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR LAWNS AND LANDSCAPING....................83MEMO 21: Low-Mow Meadows..............................................................................................85MEMO 22: Low-Maintenance Grasses.....................................................................................88MEMO 23: Low-Carbon Landscaping......................................................................................90MEMO 24: Reclaimed Water....................................................................................................92MEMO 25: Biochar...................................................................................................................94

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION......................................97MEMO 26: Student Transit Fare Discounts..............................................................................99MEMO 27: Student Parking....................................................................................................102MEMO 28: Bus Washing.......................................................................................................105MEMO 29: Traffic Alternatives for Campus Drive................................................................107MEMO 30: Hybrid Buses........................................................................................................109MEMO 31: Offsetting and/or Limiting Airline Travel............................................................112

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR DINING AND OTHER STUDENT SERVICES..................................................................................................................................115

MEMO 32: Bagasse Pricing and Procurement........................................................................117MEMO 33: Campus Composting............................................................................................120MEMO 34: Catering Waste.....................................................................................................125MEMO 35: Biodiesel...............................................................................................................128

5

MEMO 36: Bottled Water.......................................................................................................131MEMO 37: Plastic Bags..........................................................................................................134MEMO 38: Local Food Procurement......................................................................................136

6

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. Green PurchasingThe Department of Procurement and Supply should make green purchasing a priority by negotiating lower prices for “green” products; ensuring that green purchasing policies are reflected in Master Contracts; including a specific green purchasing component in training for University procurement card holders; and closely track purchases to foster green accountability.

2. Copy PaperThe Department of Procurement and Supply should eliminate 100% virgin copy paper from Master Contracts and seek to negotiate a price for 30% post-consumer content paper that is at least as low as prices for virgin paper that departments could procure elsewhere. A competitive price for recycled paper should be included as a key factor in the selection of University paper suppliers. Double sided printing should become the routine practice at the University, including making it the default setting on university printers. Where existing printers do not have the capacity for double sided printing, the University should develop a program for gradually phasing them out.

3. Green CleaningFacilities Management should continue progress towards achieving GS-42 standards with the specific goal of obtaining certification within 3-5 years, regularly reporting progress towards this goal, and also seek to negotiate lower prices for “green” cleaning products.

4. Endowment TransparencyThe University of Maryland’s College Park Foundation should work towards publishing a list of University endowment holdings and shareholder voting records on its website, making this information available to the University community and general public.

5. Green InvestingThe College Park Foundation should assess the social and environmental impacts of its current investment strategies by examining the business practices of the companies that the University currently invests in, identifying which holdings are compatible with the University’s values, and which holdings may not be compatible with the University’s principles, and formulating investment goals that maximize returns while maintaining social responsibility.

6. Dorm Electricity Use CompetitionThe University of Maryland should form a pilot dorm competition program, in which students try to achieve the largest energy use reductions, to teach students about conservation while simultaneously saving university resources and building its status as a green campus.

7. Sustainability Dorm CompetitionThe University of Maryland should form a pilot broader sustainability competition, in which dorms compete in achieving a wide variety of environmental sustainability goals, in order to help students develop sustainable habits while saving money and resources for the university and enhancing the university's sustainability profile.

7

8. Occupancy Lighting SensorsThe University should expand existing efforts to install energy-saving lighting occupancy sensors across campus and explore potential financing options including the State Energy Loan Program and creating an internal revolving loan fund for this purpose. An education program should be established across the University to communicate the cost savings likely to result from wider use of occupancy sensors. Financial incentives should be established to encourage university divisions to explore the feasibility of and to request occupancy sensors in their buildings.

9. Smart MetersThe University of Maryland should select a building to serve as a pilot project for smart meter installation and supplement this program by purchasing watt-hour meters, also monitoring energy use to measure the success of these measures and raise energy awareness across the University. Smart meters would allow the University to reexamine its budgetary procedures for energy consumption. Each University department or division might be given a quota of a “sustainable” level of energy consumption, tailored to is specific circumstances. The energy cost of this quota would be paid centrally. Use of electricity above the quota might be charged directly to the relevant University department or division. Use of electricity below the quota might generate a money rebate that would be distributed to the relevant University department or division.

10. Fume HoodsThe University should conduct an inventory of all fume hoods on campus, evaluate the potential to reduce fume hood energy use, and develop informational strategies to reduce fume hood energy use.

11. “Solar Power” for Clothes DryingThe university should implement a robust clothes drying program using indoor (and possibly outdoor) clothes lines and the energy of the sun, covering appropriate student dorms and laundry rooms, that achieves the goal of reducing student electric power consumption for clothes drying at a savings to the university, beginning with a survey to assess students’ willingness to participate and a pilot program in a few dorms to gauge actual participation.

12. Geothermal Heat PumpsThe University should conduct a design study to determine the feasibility of installing geothermal systems on campus and consider installing a geothermal system in one new building as a pilot project.

13. Energy Performance ContractingThe University should facilitate a substantial expansion of the use of energy performance contracts to reduce energy use by clarifying budget issues related to the University’s implementation of performance contracts. An explicit understanding of the financial

8

arrangements for energy performance contracts should be worked out with the State Department of Budget and Management.

14. State Budgetary Treatment of Energy Saving Investments The University should work with state officials to establish state budgetary procedures that more strongly encourage the University to make energy efficiency investments. Where the University takes actions that result in long run energy cost savings to the University and the state, the financial benefits should accrue at least in part to the University, enabling it to fund other programs more generously.

15. Renewable Energy CertificatesUMD should follow through with its Renewable Energy Credit (REC) clean energy purchasing plan, thereby supporting nearby wind projects in West Virginia and Pennsylvania via REC investments. RECs should be certified by the nationally recognized certification organization, Green-E. The University should be sure that REC purchases result in actual increases in renewable energy production above what would be a reasonable baseline estimate.

16. Impervious SurfacesUMD’s Facility Council should consider creating an impervious surface policy for new construction on campus and address impervious surfaces in its next master plan. This might include a no-net-increase-policy – a decision not to allow any future net increases in impervious surfaces on the campus. Newly created impervious surfaces would then have to be accompanied by “offsets” elsewhere that reduced existing impervious surfaces on the campus.

17. Green Infrastructure Facilities Management and the Facilities Council should consider adopting stormwater policies and supporting implementation mechanisms that limit stormwater flows through the installation of various forms of green infrastructure, including rain barrels, green roofs, and rain gardens.

18. Rain BarrelsThe University should hold a student design contest to develop rain barrels compatible with University architectural standards and other aesthetic considerations and undertake an experimental program of installing suitably designed rain barrels and accompanying watering systems in a select set of campus buildings.

19. Construction Site Stormwater ManagementThe University should undertake a pilot project to examine the efficacy of new and possibly improved methods of controlling stormwater runoff at construction sites.

20. Selling Water Quality CreditsThe University of Maryland’s faculty expertise in water quality trading should be tapped by Facilities Management to help to develop a program for selling water quality credits under the new State of Maryland water trading program. The University should make a public statement that it is willing and actively looking to generate and sell water quality credits.

9

21. Low-Mow Meadows The University of Maryland should consider a trial program for creating new low-mow areas of campus in order to save university resources and minimize the university's environmental impact. Some appropriate areas could be mowed less frequently and others might be left unmowed altogether and converted to meadows that would serve to retain stormwater and other sustainability purposes.

22. Low Maintenance GrassesThe University of Maryland should consider an experimental program to convert a small area of campus lawns to low maintenance grasses. Under this program, facilities staff could examine of the best species to plant, the resource savings possible, and the views of the campus community with respect to the aesthetic and other consequences of such a change.

23. Low-Carbon LandscapingThe Department of Building and Landscape Services should reduce the emissions and other environmental impacts generated by landscaping operations by procuring less polluting and more energy efficient equipment and evaluating whether current gas-powered landscaping equipment is necessary in every case.

24. Reclaimed WaterFollowing the example of other campuses, the University should examine the possibilities for a water reclamation system that would increase the retention of and level of reuse of University water consumption, potentially reducing water bills and achieving net cost savings.

25. BiocharGiven its major potential sustainability benefits as a fertilizer, biochar deserves further study by UMD, potentially via an experimental plot by the plant sciences department. In particular, the prospect of using chicken waste—given the surplus of this leading Bay pollutant on the Eastern Shore—is inviting as a raw material for biochar.

26. Student Transit Fare Discounts The University should reenter negotiations with WMATA seeking to negotiate an arrangement that would make Metro rail and bus service available to UMD students on the same discounted terms that WMATA at present offers to senior citizens (half fare on rail and 50 cents on buses). The University should also seek to negotiate a reduced student price for Metrobus passes that would cover a full semester (such passes are currently available for $11 per week and allow unlimited free Metro use during the week -- but on buses only). The University should contribute some of its own funds to make such bus passes available to students for a full semester at a low cost – perhaps $50 per semester per student.

10

27. Student Parking The University should review its pricing and other parking policies to make them more sustainable. Parking fees should be used as a policy instrument to alter faculty and student behavior to serve the University’s environmental objectives. Student parking fees should be raised to levels more commensurate with the marginal costs to the University of providing parking facilities, including the environmental costs of student commuting. In place of on-campus parking, satellite lots should be constructed at locations off the campus to provide long term parking for those students living on campus who have a car. If fewer cars are parked on campus, some parking lots should be returned to lawns and meadows. The University should reduce single-occupant commuting to the campus by implementing a “Non-Commuter Zone” based on proximity to campus and shuttle routes. On-campus parking permits would not be issued to students living in this zone. The assumption that automobiles should provide the basic means of transportation for most students should be revisited – in conjunction with changes in other transportation policies to enhance non-automotive options.

28. Bus Washing The East Campus redevelopment plan presents a timely opportunity to improve the efficiency of the university's bus washing systems. A new bus washing facility should be constructed in order to reduce the university's water consumption and the amount of time and money spent on cleaning all types of university vehicles.

29. Traffic Alternatives for Campus DriveA series of experiments should be conducted during the school year in which days are set aside to test the possible effects of limiting traffic on Campus Drive. On those days, varying distances of the street could be blocked off to car traffic in order to determine how the campus community might be affected by the resulting changes in traffic flow.

30. Hybrid BusesThe University of Maryland should invest in one or two hybrid buses in order to gain experience with this new technology and judge its potential for lowering the emissions and fuel use of Shuttle UM.

31. Offsetting and/or Limiting Airline Travel The University should contact Amtrak and Orbitz to seek to negotiate a University discount to encourage rail travel along the Northeast corridor. The University should also begin discussions with their contracted travel agents to see if an agreement can be reached to receive rebates on ticket purchases that would go to purchasing carbon offsets. If not, when these contracts are up, the University should look to find a travel agent that will cover offsets. Since the University does not require travel to be arranged through these agents, it should also collect a carbon offset surcharge on all University reimbursed tickets not purchased through the travel agent.

32. Bagasse Pricing and Procurement Dining Services should take steps to increase the cost-effectiveness of bagasse procurement by exploring a take-out container price increase and expanding the Eat Initiative. Availability of compost bins should also be addressed to ensure that bagasse can be composted easily throughout campus.

33. Campus CompostingExpanding food-waste composting capacity by purchasing pulpers would allow more food waste to be composted at the University in a sanitary manner. Dining Services could recoup the cost of pulpers and related expenditures by waste disposal savings and selling its food waste to a composting facility.

34. Catering WasteDining Services should reduce catering waste by revising the Goodies-to-Go order form and tableware policy so that customers specify which tableware items they want and pay per item, as well as expanding the use of biodegradable tableware.

35. Biodiesel Facilities Management should purchase biodiesel production equipment and partner with Biodiesel University or the Green Guild Biodiesel group to train employees and students to make biodiesel from cooking grease. Biodiesel produced in-house could be used in campus lawnmowers, converted diesel vehicles, and the cogeneration plant. The University should explore possibilities for partnering with the Town of College Park for the purpose of establishing a joint biodiesel facility that could also serve Town restaurants.

36. Bottled WaterDining Services should reexamine its contract with Pepsi to determine options that are available for reducing and eliminating bottled water sales and to ensure that a new contract does not lock the University into an agreement to stock and sell bottled water. As bottled water is phased out of cafes, convenience stores, and the Stamp Student Union food court, water filtration devices should be installed, allowing customers to dispense water into reusable bottles or use a cup.

37. Plastic Bags The Book Center should commit to significantly reducing the use of plastic bags by expanding on its recent decision to sell reusable bags, training checkout staff to ask customers whether they would like a bag, and instituting an informational campaign across the campus.

38. Local Food Procurement Dining Services should seek to expand its use of local food. This might include holding special local food events to increase student awareness and acceptance.

12

Top Recommendations: (selected for feasibility and potential wide scope of impact)

No. 2 – Copy Paper No. 4 -- Endowment Transparency No. 6 -- Dorm Electricity Use Competition No. 9 -- Smart Meters No. 10 -- Fume Hoods No. 13 – Funding of Energy Performance Contracting No. 14 – State Budgetary Treatment of Energy Saving Investments No. 21 -- Low Mow Meadow Creation No. 28 – Bus Washing No. 31 – Offsetting or Limiting Airplane Travel No. 33 – Campus Composting

 Low-Hanging Fruit: (selected for low cost, no requirements for outside approval, few administrative constraints, and quick payback)

No. 4 – Endowment Transparency No. 3 -- Dorm Electricity Use Competition No. 8 – Occupancy Lighting sensors No. 10 – Fume Hoods No. 11 – Use of “Solar Power” for Clothes Drying No. 18 – Rain Barrels No. 34 -- Catering Waste No. 37 -- Plastic Bags at the University Book Center No. 38 -- Local Food Procurement by Dining Services

13

[This page intentionally left blank]

14

INTRODUCTION

The University of Maryland Strategic Plan, adopted in 2008, states that “The University of Maryland will be widely recognized as a national model for a Green University. In ten years time, the University will have made substantial progress toward addressing energy issues.” The Plan states that the University will “slash” energy use, expand “green spaces,” “dramatically” reduce its carbon footprint, and build and retrofit buildings according to “strict environmental standards.” In May 2007, President Dan Mote joined more than 500 other university presidents in signing the American College and University President’s Climate Commitment, pledging to reduce campus greenhouse gas emissions and to work to achieve carbon neutrality at the University. In these and in other ways, the University of Maryland has made a commitment to review all aspects of its operations with the goal of improving environmental sustainability and performance.

Translating this goal into a set of concrete actions will not be easy. It will require that many university employees reexamine and alter their familiar ways of doing things. Budgets will have to be developed to provide the necessary funding for investments in energy efficiency, reduced stormwater flows, new transportation options, and other steps to improve campus sustainability. University staff will have to be trained to build sustainability considerations into their routine decision making. Campus officials will have to follow up on the general strategic commitment to become a green university with a range of specific policy and administrative actions.

Making progress towards a more sustainable campus thus is not an environmental issue alone. Sustainability requires consideration of economic, administrative, budgetary, and many other matters. A sustainable set of actions for the University campus must be compatible with these other areas of major University concern. There may be opportunities, moreover, to achieve gains in these other areas along with the environmental improvements sought. The pursuit of sustainability creates a new agent for change throughout the operations of the University. It offers the opportunity to review familiar ways of doing things in economic, administrative, and other domains -- and to assess whether the old ways still make sense in light of altered current conditions and circumstances, including a newly enhanced concern for the environmental performance of the campus.

Lessons from a Private Business Example

It is sometimes suggested that sustainability requires actions that will be costly to an organization. This skepticism is being routinely refuted, however, with more and more examples from the private business sector. The Wall Street Journal recently reported on an example of a Subaru automobile plant in Indiana. As the Journal commented, “for years, it was the conventional wisdom: If you improved quality, costs would also rise. But then companies discovered the opposite was true. By redesigning processes – reducing mistakes, doing things right the first time – companies could provide better products and services and cut their costs.” The same lesson was now being learned with respect to making businesses more sustainable. “Now its time to learn this lesson all over again, as it applies to going green.” This was illustrated by an auto plant that showed how “re-engineering processes with green principles and

15

greater efficiency in mind can not only improve a company’s standing with nature, but increase its profits and give it a competitive advantage as well.”1

This common experience offers a commentary on the character of modern bureaucracy in most large organizations. The organizations may be innovative in their infancy but often settle into conventional ways of doing things. They commonly are slow to adopt new and better technology, to perceive new market opportunities and to respond to many other changing conditions and circumstances. It is only when some outside force – the requirement to keep up with new competitors, or now the demands of society for more sustainable practices – arises that the organization undertakes a comprehensive review of its operations. When such a review is undertaken, and when top management puts its full authority behind the effort, many new and more efficient – and more sustainable – ways of doing things are often found. As the Wall Street Journal reported, “with employees at every level of the plant looking for ways to save energy, reduce waste, and generally make processes more efficient, one measure of its success is a 14 % reduction in electricity consumption on a per-car basis since 2000. An even bigger achievement: It has not shipped any waste to a landfill since May 2004.”2

At the beginning it was almost easy as “many of the Subaru plant’s early green initiatives delivered quick paybacks and required little effort: dimming assembly-line lights automatically when the workers took breaks, for example, or plugging leaks in compressed-air lines, or recycling more materials.” Other changes took longer – a decade or more in some cases to fully explore, refine, and implement -- but also eventually yielded significant reductions in energy and materials inputs and waste outputs. A key to it all was the full commitment and involvement of top management. As the Journal reported, “management’s leadership is vital in setting goals and getting departments,” each of whom may have different ways of doing things, and may be jealous of its own prerogatives, “to cooperate” fully.

Consider an idea that originated with a worker in engine assembly at the Subaru plant. The idea: to return packaging material to a supplier for reuse. Engine assembly couldn’t do this on its own. Engineering needed to certify that the material could be reused. Purchasing had to renegotiate with the supplier. Transportation and logistics dealt with how the materials would be returned, and accounting looked at budget and control ramifications.

Without clear signals from above pushing for such cooperation, progress will quickly bog down.3

Some other lessons from business experience are that it is important to involve the workers on the ground. They are the ones who know the details of organizational operations and how improvements might be made. The workers also need to know that their suggestions will be heard – and that rewards in salary or other respects may be forthcoming for valuable ideas. Subaru discovered that it was also desirable to become closely involved with suppliers because they played such a central role in many aspects of the production process. For example, a Japanese supplier had long sent engine parts in Styrofoam blocks that were recycled in Indiana. 1 Alan G. Robinson and Dean M. Schroeder, “Greener and Cheaper: The Conventional Wisdom is that a Company’s Costs Rise as its Environmental Impact Falls. Think Again.” Wall Street Journal, March 23, 2009.2 Ibid.3 Ibid.

16

On further consideration, Subaru found that, since the containers with the engine parts had to be returned to Japan anyway, it was feasible to send the Styrofoam back to Japan where it could often be reused.

As compared with a private company such as Subaru, a public university such as the University of Maryland faces a more complex operating environment. The University’s total budget, for example, is not set by top management (consulting with a board of directors) but by officials in Annapolis. For some actions, departmental faculties may be required to give their approval. Contracting in the public sector often involves more rigid rules and procedures that do not apply to private companies.

The following lessons can be drawn from private business experience for sustainability at the University of Maryland.

1. The top management of the University will have to make a strong and clear commitment to sustainability that is reflected in close personal attention and a willingness to reward lower level officials, and to resolve difficulties that may arise.

2. Much as businesses must work with their suppliers, the University must work with its suppliers such as energy companies, paper sources, and many others.

3. Campus sustainability will require that other public officials in Annapolis, the municipality of College Park, and elsewhere join in the effort. In Annapolis, the governor and legislature may have an important role to play in altering traditional practices that now limit efforts to make the University of Maryland more sustainable.

4. It is important to communicate the high priority of sustainability to faculty, staff, students and other parts of the university community – including appropriate rewards for those who make outstanding contributions. Many of the most important ideas for sustainability will originate at the bottom of the University organization.

5. Sustainability is not only an environmental objective. Truly sustainable actions must serve the economic, administrative, budgetary, and other needs of the university, and fit over the long run within the constraints that such needs impose.

Past Sustainability Actions

This report draws upon and seeks to build from a wider set of plans and action that have already been taken to improve the environmental sustainability of the University of Maryland. The University has already taken a variety of steps, beginning as early as 2003, towards achieving a more sustainable campus. The Environmental Stewardship Committee, formed in 2003, developed campus Environmental Stewardship Guidelines that were adopted by the Facilities Council in 2005. These guidelines included goals encompassing all aspects of environmental stewardship from air quality to water quality to environmental purchase preference to curriculum development. The goals and objectives gave the University an important starting point, encouraging a variety of groups throughout the campus to determine tangible changes that could

17

be implemented in order to attain these goals. These groups include the Facilities Council, Environmental Stewardship Committee, Facilities Management, Environmental Safety, Procurement and Supply, Business Services, Transportation Services, University Human Resources, Colleges, Schools and other University departments and programs, and University faculty, staff, and students.

The changes have already had a significant impact on behavior, environmental awareness and energy savings across the campus. For example, the recipient of the EPA’s 2005 Energy Star Award, the University’s Combined Heat and Power Plant, was completed in 2003. The system produces the steam required for the heating and part of the cooling for the University. It can produce up to 90 percent of the University’s winter electric demand and around 50 percent of the summer demand. A thermal energy storage system cools water at night and stores it for daytime cooling of three UMD buildings. Lighting across campus is being updated to higher efficiency lamps and the number of lamps is being reduced in some areas. New carbon dioxide monitors are being installed to ventilate buildings only when necessary.

Hallways across campus now use 80 percent less energy than they did before a campus-wide lighting retrofit project started in spring 2008. The Hallway Lighting Project replaced existing T8 fluorescent light fixtures with new T5 volumetric light fixtures and reduced lighting levels to those specified by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. This combination of using energy efficient fixtures and reducing lighting to sufficient levels will save approximately 6,600 Megawatt hours of electricity and 5,200 tons of CO2 emissions each year.

The Maryland Board of Public Works approved a $20 million contract with Johnson Controls to purchase and install efficient electrical, mechanical and plumbing equipment. The State of Maryland has provided a financing mechanism for such projects -- called “energy performance contracts” (ESCOs). The project is designed to save 22 percent of the energy usage in the buildings involved and to generate operational savings of $1.7 million dollars each year. That translates into savings of 4,100 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The contract will address lighting; water use; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); building envelope; and building automation controls.

The campus recycling rate increased from 17 percent in 2003 to 54 percent in 2008. The "Feed the Turtle" program introduced recycling and composting to home football games during the fall 2008 season. Some campus departments have adopted sustainability guidelines that include minimum standards for purchasing recycled paper and other environmentally preferable activities. The Department of Environmental Safety has helped faculty and staff reduce hazardous waste and create safer laboratories. All cleaning products used by Residential Facilities are Green Seal Certified. Facilities Management uses some Green Seal products in academic and administrative buildings.

New construction and major renovations must meet LEED-Silver green building standards of the U.S. Green Building Council. Knight Hall will be the first LEED-rated building that is owned and operated by the University on the College Park campus. Since December 2007, the entire campus has been certified as an Arboretum and Botanical Garden. The Golf Course is a certified Audubon International Wildlife Sanctuary.

18

The University continues to search for other ways to improve campus sustainability and to determine innovative ways to decrease greenhouse gas emissions in order to meet the targets which were agreed upon in 2007 by President Mote. Some of the recent steps include:

In April 2007, University students voted to increase student fees by $12 per year to fund the purchase of clean, renewable energy. This fee will be collected beginning in the fall of 2009.

In July 2007, the Office of Sustainability was established to coordinate the University's participation in the American College and University Presidents Climate Commitment and to otherwise advance sustainability efforts campus-wide.

Students from each of the University System of Maryland (USM) institutions formed the Maryland Student Climate Coalition in the fall of 2007, and created the Environmental Sustainability and Climate Change Initiative, a set of practices, programs and policies to guide the whole System.

In June 2008, the University released its first inventory of campus greenhouse gas emissions covering 2002-2007 emissions.

The Climate Action Plan Work Group is developing emissions reduction strategies to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. A Draft Action Plan was issued in April 2009. The Climate Action Plan is scheduled to be finalized by September 2009.

The University has made formal commitments to a Green Building Policy, greater provision of Public Transportation, and Waste Minimization.

More than 100 environmental courses are offered at the University each year. Outside the classroom, students can learn about issues by building sustainable homes, living in an eco community, or participating in a variety of events.

Other Universities

Many other universities have made a similar commitment to sustainability. The University of Maryland should study and may be able to learn from their examples.

Arizona State University: Energy Conservation: To reduce heat loss a boiler blow down heat recovery system was

installed and exposed steam/hot water piping was insulated. A solar photovoltaic carport covering forty two parking spaces satisfies daytime lighting requirements for lighting in the garage.

Waste Management: Trees at ASU produce a variety of fruits and herbs such as rosemary, bay leaf, and basil. To reduce its solid waste volume, ASU is working to implement the Campus-Grown Foods Program to harvest these edible foods. The University Club uses some of the citrus and herbs, and opportunities to locate other buyers for campus-grown produce are being explored. The Recycling Program demanufactures electronics and recycles batteries, toner and ink cartridges, cell phones, and even shoes. ASU Mail Services has partnered with the Ecological Mail Coalition to help reduce each department´s junk mail.

Community Involvement: ASU will offer a Serving Sustainability to Sun Devils Award for restaurants and other food services near the campus that commit to reducing food and packaging waste, increasing energy and water efficiency, and incorporating sustainability into their service.

19

University of North Carolina at Chapel HillCommunity Involvement: UNC and the town of Chapel Hill became the first town-gown

partners in the country to sign the Community Carbon Reduction Pledge, committing the university and surrounding community to a 60 percent reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2050.

Student Activism: The solar hot water system on top of the renovated Morrison Residence Hall is the first project funded by the Student Green Energy Fee. Residential Green Games is an environmental competition among residence halls to stimulate energy and water conservation, reduce the amount of trash generated while increasing recycling, and promote student awareness of campus sustainability initiatives.

Water Conservation: UNC is committing $5 million to a reclaimed water system that will divert treated effluent from the Mason Farm Sewage Treatment Plant for non-potable reuse on campus. It will replace approximately 180 million gallons of potable water per year used in the operation of the University’s central chiller plant cooling towers. The vehicle wash bay captures and processes gray water and reuses it to wash vehicles. Toilets have been renovated with dual-flush valves that reduce the water used per flush by up to 31 percent.

University of California, Berkeley Energy Conservation: UC-Berkeley installed solar panels on the available roof space of

campus buildings to generate solar energy. Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) – The campus is greening its electricity supply by

making an investment in green power credits, also known as Renewable Energy Credits.Carbon Offsets – The purchase of carbon offsets reduces net carbon emissions through

arrangements with a carbon-offset provider specializing in projects off-campus that retire or capture carbon from the atmosphere.

Transportation: UC-Berkeley is introducing fleet biking and expanding its electric vehicle fleet through existing/new vendor contracts to replace a subset of the campus fleet. It will assign a “carbon fee” to parking permits. Funds from this fee collection will go to greenhouse gas reduction projects on campus.

Waste Management: The Bargain Barn seeks to reuse items that may otherwise be thrown away. The Bargain Barn offers office furniture, computers, lab equipment, and many other items that are no longer being used by campus students and faculty.

University of Florida:Energy Conservation: The University is installing Vending Misers that power down a

vending machine when the area surrounding it is unoccupied and automatically repowers the vending machine when the area is reoccupied. A Vending Miser will reduce the power consumption of a cold drink vending machine by an average of 46%. The Vending Miser automatically powers up the vending machine to ensure that the vended product stays cold.University of Washington –

Energy conservation: The University is removing elevator motor-generator sets and electromechanical relays and controls and replacing them with computer logic controls and solid-state drives, thus providing immediate reductions in electricity usage. Many of the older motors used electricity even when they weren’t in operation.

Waste Reduction: 350 ‘Smart Cans’ were strategically placed in high traffic areas around the campus. These 36-gallon stainless-steel receptacles feature a lower portion for litter and an

20

upper chamber for recycling cans, glass and plastic bottles. The unique upper repository is clearly identified and has a convenient spring-loaded trap door to allow for easy access and servicing. The UW has been donating approximately 55 pounds of food a day to Food Lifeline since the University’s involvement with the non-profit food-distribution organization began in 1999. The food is transported to one of 25 meal programs in King County.

Selected Other Universities Carbon Offsets: The Universities of Oklahoma, Minnesota, and Iowa, and Michigan State

University have joined the Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX), North America’s only legally binding greenhouse gas (GHG) emission registry, reduction and trading system. In joining, these institutions have committed to either reducing their GHG emissions each year beginning in 2003, or to buying carbon offsets from another party to bring them into compliance with CCX’s membership terms. As member institutions continue to lower their emissions, they may benefit from the sale of their emission allowances through CCX.

Green Funds: The Harvard University Green Campus Initiative makes $12 million available to a green campus loan fund for sustainability initiatives and projects. Units of the campus apply for funds and pay them back from their own budgets, thus operating outside the conventional university budgeting system. More than $7 million has been invested in 110 projects. The energy efficiency and other projects achieved a simple payback of three years on average and a return on investment of 33 percent.

Waste Reduction: The University of Florida–Gainesville set a goal of zero waste by 2015. The UF Green Team network will develop strategies for reduction of consumption and waste. http://www.sustainable.ufl.edu/greenteam/reuse.html

Energy conservation: Amherst College purchases enough renewable energy credits to offset the emissions from student computer use. Some residence facilities have solar hot water systems. Bates College is using a B5 biodiesel blend to heat some campus residences. At Columbia University, installation of 54 low-flow fume hoods saves the equivalent of five gallons of home heating oil per hour when the outside temperature is 15 F. Over the course of a year, their environmental benefit is a 4.6 million-pound reduction in carbon dioxide emissions.

Food & Recycling: Dalhousie University dining halls have adopted a trayless policy to conserve water, heating energy, and food waste. At the University of San Francisco, clothes, furniture, and art supplies are donated to local nonprofit distribution centers, and food waste is given to homeless shelters.

Student Activism: Rutgers Energy Institute is holding a contest to engage students in the development of a plan for Rutgers to become carbon neutral by 2030. The Institute is offering four prizes of $2500 each to undergraduate students or teams who submit the best ideas to reduce the University's carbon dioxide emissions. Students are to develop implementable plans that contain an analysis of costs and energy savings, a timeline for implementation, suggestions for how the plan can be implemented, and how the costs and energy savings were calculated. In the state of Minnesota, fourteen colleges and universities are holding an intercampus energy conservation competition called "Campus Wars." Campuses compete to see who can achieve the greatest percent reduction in campus energy use as compared to the campus' average energy consumption over the previous three Februarys. Berkshire School has implemented a global warming pollution emissions trading system between dorms to both help reduce global warming pollution and educate the student body.

21

Transportation: St. Olaf College Green Machine Bicycle Program collects and recycles used and discarded bikes for students to use on campus.

Water conservation: The College of Marin is replacing 40 standard urinals with a waterless model that will save an estimated 2.5 million gallons of water next year

Green Preferred Purchasing: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville has become the first university in the US to be certified for its green cleaning practices. The certification granted by Green Seal -- known as GS-42 -- applies to the seven buildings on the UT campus that are cleaned by UT personnel. The certification requires that UT take steps to make the cleaning process more efficient, including communication with clients and effective equipment maintenance. In addition, all products used in the cleaning process must be environmentally friendly.

Sustainability Rankings

Reflecting the growing interest in campus sustainability, various rankings of different universities are now available.

In August 2007 the University of Maryland was rated (with Harvard, Yale and Tufts, the only other top-ranked large American universities) as one of the top 15 “green” universities by Grist Magazine, an online environmental journal. Stanford and the University of California, Berkeley were listed among the “runners-up” of universities whose practices were reviewed by Grist.

The most widely publicized review, covering 300 universities, and including an examination of 43 separate sustainability indicators on each campus is the “College Sustainability Report Card.” Surveys in 2008 were sent to each university, as conducted by the Sustainable Endowments Institute, funded by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and six other foundations. The 43 indicators fall in 9 broad categories, including (1) “administration,” (2) “climate change and energy,” (3) “food and recycling,” (4) “green building,” (5) “student involvement,” and (6) “transportation.” Reflecting the sponsorship of this effort by the Sustainable Endowments Institute, the other three categories relate to the financial operations of each university – (7) “endowment transparency,” (8) “investment priorities,” and (9) “shareholder engagement.” Grades from A to F are assigned to each university for each of the 9 categories.

In the latest report card released in April 2009, the University of Maryland received a grade of B-which put it in 82nd place overall in the rankings. This reflects in significant part the poor grades that the university receives in the three financial categories relating to endowment transparency and investment policies. In other respects the University does considerably better, receiving the following grades: administration, A; climate change and energy, B; food and recycling, B; green building, C; student involvement, A; and transportation, A.

For purposes of comparison, the following tables show the top 15 universities in the Sustainable Endowment Institute’s rankings, the grades of the five aspirational peers of the University of Maryland, and the grades of fellow ACC schools.

22

Top 15 Universities as Ranked for Sustainability

1. Oberlin College – A-2. University of New Hampshire – A-3. University of British Columbia – A-4. Columbia University – A-5. Dickinson College – A-6. Harvard University – A-7. Middlebury College – A-8. University of Washington – A-9. Brown University – A-10. Carleton College – A-11. University of Colorado – A-12. Dartmouth College – A-13. University of Pennsylvania – A-14. Stanford University – A-15. University of Vermont – A-

Sustainability Grades of UMD and Its Aspirational Peers

University of California, Berkeley -- BUniversity of California, Los Angeles – B-University of Maryland – B-University of Michigan – BUniversity of Minnesota – B+University of North Carolina – B+

Sustainability Grades of ACC Schools

Boston College – B-Clemson -- BDuke – B+Florida State University – C-Georgia Tech – BMiami – C+North Carolina State – C+University of Maryland – B-University of North Carolina – B+University of Virginia -- BVirginia Tech – B-Wake Forest – C-

The University of Maryland could significantly improve its Sustainable Endowments Institute ranking by altering its policies relating to endowment transparency and financial investments (see memo Number 4). There are also a number of other rankings. The Princeton Review

23

provides a sustainability ranking based in part on responses of current students and intended primarily for potential students at universities around the United States.

Plan of the Report

The remainder of this report provides a menu of possible specific concrete steps to improve the sustainability of the College Park campus. For each possible step, a short memo is presented that provides a description of the following:

Current Status on CampusBest Practices at other Universities and other InstitutionsAlternativesCosts/Issues Recommendations

The memos are organized according to the following areas of University operations:

1. Energy Efficiency2. Stormwater 3. Lawns and Landscaping4. Transportation 5. Dining and Other Student Services

24

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS OF GENERAL APPLICABILITY

25

[This page intentionally left blank]

26

MEMO 1: Green Purchasing

TO: Ann WylieFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Green Purchasing

Current Status on Campus

The University procures about $400 million worth of goods and services each year including materials for new construction and renovations.1 The University has developed a draft environmentally preferable procurement policy to promote sustainability and reduce carbon emissions. The policy states that requisitions submitted to the Department of Procurement and Supply should include a statement identifying the environmentally preferable alternatives considered and the “green” features included in the goods or services requested. The policy is currently an appendix to the Draft Climate Action Plan (CAP).2

There are three processes for procurement based on the value of the purchase. Purchases less than $5,000 can be made without seeking competition. There are more than 1,700 credit card holders across campus that can make these purchases, and over 150,000 transactions are made each year through this method for a value of about $60 million. For purchases greater than $5,000 but less than $100,000, an informal bidding process must take place. Finally, procurement for materials and services with a value greater than $100,000 must go through a formal bidding process. Master Contracts are an exception to the normal procurement processes. Master Contracts, which provide departments with lower-cost procurement options, are developed with suppliers through a competitive procurement process. Individual departments are able to purchase goods and services included in the Master Contracts directly from the contract vendor, and this policy applies to contracts of any dollar value.3

Best Practices

Rutgers’ Purchasing Department has a long history of green purchasing. Rutgers’ strategies include making a continuous effort to drive down costs of “green” products; tracking purchases; communicating strategies to procurement decision makers; requesting that suppliers share information about their efforts to promote sustainability and new “green” products they are offering; and hiring interns to talk with departments about products and purchasing.4 Rutgers has also extended its green purchasing initiative to include the surrounding community by establishing a Green Purchasing Cooperative Program.5

Alternatives

1 Stirling, J. Personal Interview. 12 Mar. 2009.2 University of Maryland. http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/UMD_CAP_Draft.pdf3 Stirling, J. Personal Interview. 12 Mar. 2009.4 Lyons, K. Personal Interview. 21 Apr. 2009.5 U.S. 1 Newspaper. http://www.princetoninfo.com/index.php?option=com_us1more&Itemid=6&key=07-07-2009%20Rutgers

27

The Department of Procurement and Supply at the University of Maryland could make a strong effort to negotiate lower prices for specific “green” products to the point that there is no price premium. The Department could also work to ensure that green purchasing policies are reflected in Master Contracts. For example, the University could consider only including recycled paper with at least 30 percent post-consumer content while making sure that the prices are as lower as possible for virgin paper.

The Department could begin to develop accountability mechanisms for green purchasing by clearly identifying which products are considered “green” and developing a comprehensive method for tracking purchases. The University could adopt best practices in this area from Rutgers, which has extensive experience in tracking purchases.

The Department could also make an effort to improve communication with University procurement card holders about green purchasing options. This could include a list on the procurement website of “green” products included in specific Master Contracts. In addition, University training for procurement card holders could include a specific green purchasing component that explains the environmentally preferable procurement policy and options for green purchasing.

Costs/Issues

Cost can be a significant hurdle to increasing green purchasing due to the cost premium that “green” products sometimes carry. Due to budget constraints, individual departments often have no choice but to try to find the lowest price for all purchases. Another hurdle is that budget authority for the University is decentralized, and it is difficult to mandate procurement policies, given the number of actors involved. In addition, the procurement of “green” products is only one of several goals of the Department of Procurement and Supply, which include supporting small businesses and minority businesses.

Recommendations

The Department of Procurement and Supply should make green purchasing a priority by seeking to negotiate lower prices for “green” products; ensuring that green purchasing policies are reflected in Master Contracts; and including a specific green purchasing component in training for University procurement card holders. The Department should also develop a comprehensive method for tracking purchases, which would contribute to developing accountability mechanisms for green purchasing.

28

MEMO 2: Copy Paper

To: Ann Wylie FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Copy Paper

Issue Description and Current Status on Campus

The environmental impact from the production, use and disposal of copy paper purchased in 2008 by the University of Maryland’s Department of Procurement is estimated to be the equivalent of: 1,586 tons of wood removed from forests; 19 million BTU’s of total energy used; 2.8 million pounds CO2 equivalent in greenhouse gasses emitted; 9.4 million gallons of wastewater used; and 1.1 million pounds of solid waste created.1

By recycling paper, the fiber extraction and bleaching stages of virgin paper production are eliminated. Recycling also diverts paper from the solid waste stream, which in turn reduces methane gas release from landfills. Recycling can also help control the disposal of toxic wastes such as heavy metals in the inks on discarded papers that would otherwise end up in landfills or incinerators.

The University has developed a draft environmentally preferable procurement policy to promote sustainability and reduce carbon emissions. The draft policy states that the University’s goal is to procure 100% of its general purpose office paper from Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) certified sources, having a minimum of 30% post-consumer recycled material content.

Although paper described as “100% post-consumer recycled fiber” contains - by definition - no virgin fiber, FSC provides a certification for this type of paper as well. It is important to seek FSC certified product, even when procuring paper comprised of 100% recycled content, because FSC actually audits and traces the recycled content sources through the chain of custody.  Manufacturers of paper which claim to have 100% recycled content, but which do not carry the FSC certification, often can not verify the content source through the entire chain of custody.

By improving its policies relating to the procurement and consumption of copy paper, the University may have opportunities to reduce this environmental impact and to demonstrate leadership in environmental stewardship which may inspire change at other universities and organizations.

A summary of the volume, cost and composition of copy paper procured by the Department of Procurement and Supply, for the Administrative, Academic, and Student Affairs offices in 2008 is as follows2:

1 Environmental impact estimates were made using the Environmental Defense Fund Paper Calculator. For more information visit http://www.papercalculator.org. 2 Kustin, M. Personal Communication. Apr.2009. According to the Department of Procurement and Supply, this data represents all copy paper product that they procured from Office Max and Rudolph’s and represents approximately 99% of the copy paper purchases for the Administrative, Academic and Student Affairs offices; the 1% omitted represents a small number of purchases made through other vendors by individuals, using the University

100% Virgin FSC 30% Recycled

FSC 50% Recycled

FSC 100% Recycled

Total

Reams% of Total Reams

% of Total Reams

% of Total Reams

% of Total Reams Cost

125,906 60% 81,420 39% 100 <1% 1,825 1% 209,251 $721,000

Best Practices

Princeton University’s paper purchasing policy, established in 2004, requires that all academic departments purchase 100% post-consumer recycled waste paper. Princeton’s switch to 100% recycled paper involved negotiating a significant reduction in cost with Boise Office Solutions; dispelling misperceptions among Princeton faculty and staff of recycled paper being of inferior quality; and developing a strategy to encourage all departments to switch to 100% recycled paper.3 The University conducted blind tests of 100 percent versus 30 percent recycled paper to make sure there was no difference in performance and now uses Boise Aspen 100% paper. At the time of the switch in 2004, the University negotiated a contract with Boise so that the recycled paper was only 40 cents more per case than the least expensive virgin paper in use.4 Princeton’s experiences suggests that, by making commitments to high volume purchases of 100% recycled paper, significant cost discounts can be negotiated from paper suppliers.

Alternatives

Assuming the draft environmentally preferable procurement policy is officially adopted, the Department of Procurement and Supply could attempt to change University behavior by measuring and publicizing changes in recycled paper purchases over time. The Department could establish tracking systems to report publicly (perhaps on a web site) on paper purchases by individual academic and administrative departments.

An alternative would be to complement the purchasing policy by eliminating 100% virgin paper from Master Contracts altogether. For this to be successful, it would be important to negotiate a price for 30% post-consumer recycled paper that is at least as low as the price for virgin paper that departments could procure elsewhere.

The Department of Procurement and Supply could set a goal that all copy paper purchased by the University be FSC certified 100% recycled content within five years. As part of this strategy, the Department could strive to negotiate significantly lower prices for 100% recycled paper.

Costs/Issues

“p-card”. Data for these additional purchases is not available. This volume represents only a subset of the total paper procured by the University, in that the Department of Business Services procures its own paper for use in the University’s Copy Centers and the Printing Center; procurement data for this department was not available and is beyond the scope of this analysis.3 Greening Princeton. http://www.princeton.edu/~greening/paper.html4 Princeton Weekly Bulletin. http://www.princeton.edu/pr/pwb/04/0322/2b.shtml

30

At present, the UMD master contract pricing for copy paper (Office Max & Rudolph’s) is as follows:

100% Virgin FSC 30% Recycled FSC 50% Recycled FSC 100% Recycled$32.75 $34.75 $41.60 $42.81

Note: Price shown is per carton; one carton = 10 reams.

Due to budget constraints and Department of Procurement and Supply guidelines which seek to purchase at least cost, regardless of environmental impact, departments at the University typically use cost as the primary determinant for paper procurement decisions. The current paper supplier may offer the lowest prices for virgin paper which may then commit the University to higher prices for recycled paper (as compared with other suppliers). Changes in University paper procurement and bidding practices thus may be necessary to increase recycled paper content. Prices of recycled paper would need to enter in a significant way into paper supplier decisions.

Recommendations

The Department of Procurement and Supply should eliminate 100% virgin copy paper from Master Contracts and negotiate a price for 30% post-consumer content paper that is at least as low as prices for virgin paper that departments could procure elsewhere. The Department of Procurement and Supply should also regularly report on paper purchases by individual academic and administrative departments and set a goal that all copy paper purchased by the University be FSC certified 100% post-consumer recycled content within five years.

The University could also seek to reduce the total volume of copy paper. One way to do this is by double sided printing. The University should set a policy that printers should be set to double sided printing as the default. Where existing printers do not have the capacity for double sided printing, the University should develop a program to replace them.

31

MEMO 3: Green Cleaning

TO: Ann Wylie FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy RE: Green Cleaning

Current Status on Campus

Green Seal is an independent, nonprofit organization that sets environmental standards for product categories and certifies products and organizations that meet those standards.5 Green Seal’s GS-42 certification is a comprehensive standard for cleaning services that encompasses all indoor activities typically required to clean commercial, public, and industrial buildings. In addition to requiring environmentally preferable cleaning products and supplies, the certification also includes components such as reducing chemical and solid waste, standards for vacuum use and floor care, and communication and employee training.6 Green cleaning practices can reduce the environmental impact of cleaning products, improve the health of cleaning staff and building occupants, and result in cost savings.

Green Seal products currently used by Facilities Management (FM) include soap, bathroom tissue, paper towels, and all cleaning chemicals except disinfectants and aerosol cleaners. Green Seal floor strippers and floor finish are currently being evaluated in a test phase. FM has plans to phase out aerosol cleaners; convert to Carpet and Rug Institute (CRI)-certified equipment; and convert to microfiber cleaning cloths. Items for which acceptable “green” alternatives have not yet been found include deodorizers, drain cleaners, tile and grout cleaners, gum remover and furniture polish.7

The University recently signed a new contract with Daycon Products Co., Inc. for cleaning products for all academic and administrative buildings. Daycon is installing chemical dilution systems in housekeeping closets, which limits employee exposure to chemicals and ensures that the proper amounts of chemicals are used.8

Best Practices

The University of Tennessee, Knoxville became the first university in the U.S. to obtain a Green Seal GS-42 certification.9 Facilities Maintenance Operations at Harvard University is pursuing a GS-42 certification. The GS-42 standards are being used as a guide for cleaning services, and all custodians are trained by the Green Seal organization in green cleaning procedures and the GS-42 specification. Harvard has developed a comprehensive guide for green cleaning practices

5 Green Seal. (2009). About Green Seal. http://www.greenseal.org/about/index.cfm6 Green Seal. (2006). GS-42 Green Seal Environmental Standard for Cleaning Services. http://www.greenseal.org/certification/cleaning_services_gs_42.pdf7 Dykes, S. Personal Communication. 15 Apr. 2009.8 Dykes, S. Personal Interview. 19 Mar. 2009.9 University of Tennessee. (2007). UT Certified as America’s First Green Cleaning University. http://www.utk.edu/news/article.php?id=4370

32

including specifications for cleaning chemicals, floor care systems, wipers and dusters, vacuums, hand soap, paper products, and plastic bags.10 According to a publication of Rutgers University, custodial workers took 12 percent fewer sick days in the year after switching to green cleaning products.11

Alternatives

FM could work with Daycon to continue its transition to Green Seal products and cleaning practices without specifically pursuing a GS-42 certification. An alternative would be to pursue a GS-42 certification within 3-5 years. A GS-42 certification would make the University a leader in green cleaning practices and could serve as an important component of the University’s sustainability efforts.

Either approach could include working with the Department of Procurement and Supply to negotiate lower prices for any “green” products that are significantly more expensive than products currently in use. One potential product would be “green” polyliners (trashcan liners). Housekeeping Services spent almost $120,000 on trashcan liners in 2008, and “green” polyliners cost about 10 percent more than the liners currently in use.12 FM could also look to the University of Tennessee, which has obtained a GS-42 certification, for ideas for specific products for which acceptable “green” alternatives have not yet been identified.

Costs/Issues

The cost of achieving a GS-42 certification for FM has not been determined, but according to Green Seal, fees for initial certification start at about $7,000. An additional annual maintenance fee, also starting at about $7,000, is required to maintain certification.13

GS-42 certification standards require daily vacuuming in primary work or office areas and carpet extraction on an as-needed basis. Housekeeping cleaning frequencies in some spaces, particularly vacuuming and carpet cleaning in office areas, were reduced in the past ten years due to budget cuts.

Recommendation

FM should work with Daycon to continue progress towards achieving GS-42 standards with the goal of obtaining certification within 3-5 years. As part of this process, FM should regularly report on progress towards meeting the GS-42 standards. FM should also work with the Department of Procurement and Supply to negotiate lower prices for any “green” cleaning products that currently carry a significant price premium.

10 Harvard University. (2009). Green Cleaning. http://www.uos.harvard.edu/fmo/custodial/greencleaning/11 Rutgers University. (2007). Green cleaning chemicals may be responsible for fewer sick days, better employee health. http://news.rutgers.edu/focus/issue.2007-11-06.8873692102/article.2007-11-07.005788994412 Dykes, S. Personal Communication. 15 Apr. 2009.13Building Services Management. http://www.bsmmag.com/bsmmag/BSMArticle.asp?id=4032

33

MEMO 4: Endowment Transparency

To: University of Maryland Foundation CC: Linda Clement, Ann Wylie, Brodie RemingtonFrom: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRe: Endowment Transparency

Current Status on Campus

Despite the great strides that the University of Maryland has made in campus sustainability, it recently received a B- grade from greenreportcard.org – perhaps the most widely publicized rating of North American universities according to the criterion of university sustainability.14 This grade was significantly influenced by the University’s lack of endowment transparency, a category in which it received an F. The Green Report Card ranking system is generated by the Sustainable Endowments Institute, a special project of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors. Although there are a number of university sustainability rankings, and all have significant flaws, the Green Report Card makes the most complete effort to gather information and is probably the most widely cited ranking at present.

The University of Maryland endowment is managed centrally by the statewide system. The total endowment statewide is about $800 million endowment; the College Park share is about $400 million. The investment portfolio is handled by investment managers, who also control shareholder voting and proxy voting. Neither the University nor the managers make the holdings of the endowment publicly available.

Endowment transparency is important because certain investment practices could work against the University’s on-campus sustainability initiatives. Investment in unnecessarily carbon-intensive industries or companies with poor environmental records might damage the University’s environmental record. According to its Mission Statement, “The University creates and applies knowledge for the benefit of the economy and culture of the State, the region, the nation, and beyond”15. As a public institution, the University of Maryland has a responsibility to be socially and environmentally aware in all of its endeavors, including investments. Endowment transparency will shed light on investment practices and foster a public dialogue about the University’s overall sustainability impact on the world.

Best Practices

Two of the University of Maryland’s public university peers, the University of Michigan and the University of Illinois, received A grades for endowment transparency on their sustainability report cards from the Sustainable Endowments Institute.16 These schools list endowment holdings and shareholder voting records in a publicly available record.

14 The College Sustainability Report Card, 2009.15 University of Maryland, 2008. Emphasis added. 16 The College Sustainability Report Card, 2009.

Nationwide, one in three Colleges or Universities maintains a public list of endowment holdings. Twenty-three percent of schools make proxy voting records publicly available. Because most schools do not yet follow this policy, the average grade for endowment transparency was a D+.

Alternatives

Open management of the University’s endowment would foster the free flow of information and allow for public review and comment on the social and environmental consequences of the University’s investment decisions. To achieve endowment transparency, the University must publicly disclose a list of endowment holdings (and any shareholder voting records).

Cost/Issues

The major barrier to improving endowment transparency is that investments are delegated to professional investment managers, not handled directly by the University. At present, managers handle shareholder voting and proxy voting as well. Hiring professional investment managers ensures that the University’s endowment will be handled with the expertise to ensure optimal returns on investment. Given the potential to impact the market, the University would not want to reveal its specific share purchasing decisions until after they have been made. However, broader endowment policies could be disclosed and debated well in advance.

Recommendations

The University of Maryland’s Foundation, working with its investment managers, should publish a list of endowment holdings (and any shareholder voting records) on its website. These records updated frequently and should be easily accessible to students, faculty, staff, and the general public.

Key Information Sources:

The College Sustainability Report Card. University of Maryland College Park. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009/schools/university-of-maryland-college-park

The College Sustainability Report Card. University of Michigan Ann Arbor. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009/schools/university-of-michigan-ann-arbor

The College Sustainability Report Card. University of Illinois. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009/schools/university-of-illinois

Raley, L. Email to Author. 9 May, 2009.

University of Maryland. (2008). Strategic Plan and University Mission Statement. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.provost.umd.edu/Strategic_Planning/PlanAndMission.html

35

MEMO 5: Green Investing

TO: University of Maryland Foundation CC: Linda Clement, Ann Wylie, Brodie RemingtonFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Green Investing

Current Status on Campus

Socially Responsible Investment (SRI) can be an effective way for an institution to promote its values. SRI has a history dating back to the 18th century when the Quaker church forbade its members from participating in the slave trade. More recently, student protests in the 1980s convinced many colleges and universities to divest from businesses in South Africa that were tacitly supporting apartheid. As a result, a coalition of businesses drafted a charger calling for the end to apartheid that helped to provide a catalyst to the end of this system.

Although the University of Maryland Foundation aims to optimize investment returns (relative to risks) in its total $800 million endowment (for all units of the statewide University system), thus far it has not considered the social and environmental impact of its investment choices. A high-performing endowment performs an important social function in itself: maximizing financial returns helps the University to pursue its goal of becoming one of the nation’s top research institutions, advancing human knowledge and improving the lives of its students. However, the University also has social and environmental obligations, such as fostering environmental sustainability, which deserve consideration in its investment decisions. Past studies have suggested that social responsible investments can earn rates of financial return comparable to the broader investment classes.

The University of Maryland College Park recently received a B- grade from greenreportcard.org.17 This low grade was influenced by a C in the Investment Priorities category. Three factors are considered in the Investment Priorities grade: (1) prioritizing overall financial returns on investment, (2) investing in renewable energy funds18, and (3) investing in community development loan funds19. The University of Maryland earned a C simply because it has a goal to achieve a high investment return, but it does not set a priority to invest in renewable energy funds or community development loan funds.

Best Practices

Nationwide, 35 percent of colleges and universities invest at least a part of their endowment in renewable energy funds while 10 percent invest in community development funds. Greenreportcard.org’s average grade for Investment Priorities was a B, but no school earned lower than a C in this category because all Universities have a goal to maximize overall returns on investments. 17 The College Sustainability Report Card, 200918 Funds consisting of stock in renewable energy companies. 19 Direct investments in community organizations that provide services such as housing, small business creation, or education.

Many of the University of Maryland’s aspirational peers follow socially and environmentally responsible investment practices. UNC and the University of Michigan earned A’s in the Investment Priority category. UNC invests in renewable energy funds while maximizing return on its portfolio and is considering investing in community development loan funds. Michigan also invests in renewable energy funds while optimizing investment returns. Investment managers and some gift program managers consider environmental sustainability in their decision-making processes.

UCLA and UC Berkeley each earned B grades in the Investment Priority category. UCLA is considering investing in renewable energy funds. UC Berkeley is exploring community development loan funds and its investment committee is in discussions with investment managers with regard to sustainability issues in its holdings.

Alternatives

There are several options for socially responsible investment that the University of Maryland could use without compromising investment returns. Beyond investing in renewable energy funds or community development funds, SRI strategies can include divestment from companies with unethical practices, screening new investments, and engaging in shareholder activism to influence the decisions of companies the University is invested in.

Costs/Issues

Evidence shows that SRIs perform on par with, and sometimes better than, the market as a whole. Moreover, SRIs are rapidly growing and becoming more mainstream. From 1995 to 2007, “total dollars under professional management in SRI grew from $639 billion to $2.71 trillion, outpacing the overall market.”20 Investment in SRIs among fiduciaries with legal obligations to seek competitive returns on their portfolios, such as foundations, university endowments, and state pension funds, are increasing as well, showing that SRIs are a competitive investment strategy. The following table compares the performance of four SRIs with the S&P 500.

Performance of Socially Responsible Mutual Funds vs S&P 50021

Pax World Balanced

Parnassus Equity Income Fund

Access Capital Strategies Community Investment Fund

Winslow Green Growth Fund

S&P 50022

Assets (millions)

1,466.20 1,254.30 547.80 149.19 --------

YTD -3.82 -10.94 3.39 -11.42 -2.495

20 Social Investment Forum21 Data on socially responsible mutual funds from Social Investment Forum, 200922 Standard and Poor’s, 2009

37

Performance3-Year -8.22 -5.14 5.69 -26.20 -10.73710-Year 1.12 4.84 5.20 5.22 -2.478

Recommendation

The University of Maryland Foundation should assess the social and environmental impacts of its current investment strategies. Considering the affect that the University’s endowment has on the world will help make it a national leader in sustainability and social responsibility.

A first step in forming a socially responsible investment strategy is to examine carefully the business practices of the companies in which the University currently invests, identifying which holdings are compatible with the University’s values, and which holdings may not be compatible with the University’s principles. A list of the latter category should be provided to investment managers.

A next step is to formulate investment goals that maximize returns while maintaining social responsibility. The University of Maryland Foundation should discuss the merits of investing in renewable energy funds, community development funds, and engaging in shareholder activism. Bringing these issues to the table is a crucial step in the University’s investment practices that will help to make it a national leader in sustainability.

Key Information Sources

AARP. Socially Responsible Investing. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aarp.org/money/financial_planning/sessionsix/socially_responsible_investing.html

The College Sustainability Report Card. (2009). University of Maryland—College Park. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.greenreportcard.org/report-card-2009/schools/university-of-maryland-college-park

Social Investment Forum. Performance and Socially Responsible Investments. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.socialinvest.org/resources/performance.cfm

Social Investment Forum. (2009, March 31). Socially Responsible Mutual Fund Charts: Financial Performance. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.socialinvest.org/resources/mfpc/

Standard and Poor’s. (2009, May 1). Indices: S&P 500. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www2.standardandpoors.com/

38

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY

39

The University has taken various steps to improve energy efficiency. The recipient of the EPA’s 2005 Energy Star Award, the University’s Combined Heat and Power Plant was completed in 2003. This plant produces the steam required for heating and in some cases cooling for the University. The plant can produce up to 90 percent of the University’s winter electric demand and around 50 percent of the summer demand. The system operates at efficiencies of around 70 percent, significantly higher than like-sized independent steam boilers and electric generators and requires approximately 16 percent less fuel than typical purchased electricity with separate steam generation, resulting in a reduction of nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide, and roughly 53,000 tons of carbon dioxide annually.

A thermal energy storage system cools water at night and stores it for daytime cooling of three UMD buildings. Lighting across campus is being updated to higher efficiency lamps and the number of lamps is being reduced in some areas. New carbon dioxide monitors are being installed to ventilate buildings only when necessary.

Hallways across campus now use 80 percent less energy than they did before a campus-wide lighting retrofit project started in spring 2008. The Hallway Lighting Project replaced existing T8 fluorescent light fixtures with new T5 volumetric light fixtures, setting lighting levels at those specified by the Illuminating Engineering Society of North America. This combination of using energy efficient fixtures and reducing lighting levels will save approximately 6,600 Megawatt hours of electricity and 5,200 tons of CO2* emissions each year.

The Maryland Board of Public Works approved a $20 million contract with Johnson Controls to purchase and install efficient electrical, mechanical and plumbing equipment. The State of Maryland has provided a financing mechanism for such projects (“energy performance contracts”). The project is designed to save 22 percent of the energy use in the buildings guaranteeing energy and operational savings of $1.7 million dollars each year. That translates into savings of 4,100 tons of carbon dioxide emissions. The contract will address lighting; water use; heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC); building envelope; and building automation controls.

There are many additional steps, however, that could be taken to improve the energy efficiency of the campus. The list below is not intended to be comprehensive but to highlight several promising possibilities.

40

MEMO 6: Dorm Electricity Use Competition

TO: Linda Clement FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Dorm Electricity Use Competition

Current Status on Campus

Providing individuals with feedback on their personal energy use and the financial impacts of energy use have been shown to inspire people to change their behavior.1 While similar programs have been implemented at other schools, the University of Maryland has not implemented a widespread competitive energy conservation program. The EcoHouse is a living-learning program currently at the University of Maryland. Students living in the New Leonardtown apartments learn to live a sustainable lifestyle while taking courses together on sustainability and the environment. While this program allows a small group of students interested in sustainability to increase their knowledge about conservation, it does little to bring in the broader university community.

However, it does highlight that dorms are an excellent place to focus behavioral modification programs since dorm occupants, unlike classroom occupants, remain relatively the same throughout the school year. This allows for encouraging behavioral changes and linking performance to a reward system in a way that cannot be done in classroom buildings that have a constant flux of occupants. On North Campus, home to mostly freshman undergraduates, students develop ties to their particular buildings which become their first homes on campus and possible their first homes away from their families. These ties could be used to encourage improvements in energy conservation.

According to a study from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, an estimated 14% of energy used in MIT dorms was wasted due to idling computers and speakers.2 There are many other ways in which excessive energy use occurs in dorms. Educating UMD students on this issue and encouraging them through an incentive system could reduce energy demand by a significant percentage of wasted electricity.

Best Practices

At Oberlin College, a two-week program is run each spring to encourage students to decrease energy consumption and educate them on strategies to do so. The dorm that reduces energy by the greatest percentage over the period wins. An award is also given out for the greatest one day reduction over the course of the two weeks. Oberlin College set up a website that gave suggestions to students on how to reduce energy use. The baseline average energy use is taken 1 ? Midden, C. J., Meter, J. F., Weenig, M. H., & Zieverink, H. J. (1983). Using feedback, reinforcement and information to reduce energy consumption in households: A field-experiment. Journal of Economic Psychology , 3 (1), 65-86. 2 Oehlerking, Austin. (2008). Establishing a demand curve for plug-Load electricity consumption in an MIT dormitory. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from Campus Greening at MIT: http://greenmit.wordpress.com/abstract-of-dorm-room-electricity-demand-curve-paper/

from the period between the start of the semester and spring break. By comparing the percent reduction from this period to the competition period, differences related to efficiency of the particular building and past performance of current residents can be taken into account. Data can be viewed in real time on the project's website. The program was paid for by the EPA "People, Prosperity and the Planet" program and by the Ohio Foundation of Independent Colleges.

Oberlin College dorms reduced electricity use by 32% during the competition, with two dorms reaching 56%. Students conserved 68,000 kWh, saved $5,100, and reduced emissions by 150,000 lbs of CO2, 1,400 lbs of SO2 and 500 lbs of NOx. The website for the competition received 4,000 hits during the two weeks, mostly from computers in dorm rooms. A survey after the competition showed that students learned new strategies and intended to continue them.3

The University of Michigan runs a campus outreach program called Planet Blue that forms teams of various campus actors to create plans for saving on utility use. Planet Blue provides data on energy consumption trends by building and tips for managing consumption. The following chart shows some of the Planet Blue's suggested actions and the corresponded monetary and emissions savings.4

The figures are based on estimates for the Michigan campus, but they may be comparable to the savings that Maryland could achieve with an energy savings campaign. Through merely providing consumption information and tips on possible actions, the campus could empower various members of the campus community to change their habits.

Alternatives

A dorm competition program should be piloted to test various methodologies and implementation strategies. As a self-supporting program on campus, Residential Facilities can obtain independent financing for such a pilot. Information on electricity consumption is currently available from Lisa Amick, Assistant to the Director of Residential Facilities in the Office of Student Affairs. She has access to historical databases on energy use by dorm building by month, but current record-keeping now tracks weekly data. North Campus provides an ideal setting for a competition because of the dorm camaraderie that exists as well as the general uniformity of the buildings, although some building vary slightly in size and layout.

3 Oberlin College, Campus Resource Monitoring System. http://www.oberlin.edu/dormenergy/4 University of Michigan, Planet Blue. http://www.planetblue.umich.edu/home.php.

42

How to Measure Results

Choosing the correct metric for comparing results must be done carefully to ensure fairness. If comparing data year to year, weather differences will apply. To account for these differences, the competition could compare percent reductions from the same monthly period of the last year by dorm. To address varying building sizes, the measurement comparison could be framed in terms of kWh/occupant.

High and Low Cost Options

A lower cost option for the pilot would be for Resident Life to coordinate with dorm Community Assistants and Residential Assistants to post charts on progress and fliers detailing ways to conserve energy. Additionally, they could run small activities during floor meetings to instruct students on ways to save electricity. The Planet Blue list provides a helpful starting point for behavior changes and the Maryland EcoHouse may be another resource.

A more preferable, but higher cost option is to implement a real-time program modeled after Oberlin College's competition and Planet Blue's data website. This would require greater resources for monitoring and tracking energy use as well as a sophisticated website that can report real time data. Even in the absence of a contest, having real time data available on a website could create a greater awareness of energy use and encourage students to voluntarily take action.

Costs/Issues

Cost considerations depend on the type of pilot program chosen. The costs of running a dorm energy use competition without a real time data website would be minimal. Costs would mainly include office supplies for setting up charts and posters around dorms. Also, some resources will need to be allocated to provide a reward for the winning dorm. These costs should be quite small in relation to energy savings and costs could be recouped from money that would have been spent on paying electricity bills.

Recommendation

The University of Maryland should form a pilot dorm competition program based on the best practices of other institutions in hopes of designing a more robust program in the future. Through a competition, the university can teach students about conservation while simultaneously saving university resources and building its status as a green campus. The University should publicize the competition (such as form appearances by University sports figures) and include attractive prizes (such as special access to athletic and other University events).

43

MEMO 7: Sustainability Dorm Competition

TO: Linda ClementFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Sustainability Dorm Competition

Current Status on Campus

As a way of encouraging wider sustainability goals on campus, the University of Maryland could go beyond energy and create an overall sustainability contest between dorm buildings. Under this program, dorms of students could earn points or be ranked in terms of their utility usage and participation in various types of educational and sustainability activities.

Encouraging sustainable student habits through a dorm competition fits into goals laid out by the University's administration. According to the University of Maryland 2007-2008 Strategic Plan,“The University will become a model for environmental stewardship and sustainability. We will substantially reduce the use of energy, water, materials, and natural resources.”

Best Practices

Duke University ran a program called Eco-Olympics in 2006. The program addressed energy and water use reduction through a dorm competition on its East Campus. The competition included a series of events that educated students and impacted reductions. Students could earn points by participating in events and have chances to win prizes.5

Links to various energy and sustainability dorm competition programs can be found at http://www2.aashe.org/competitions/competition-websites/competition-websites.

Alternatives

A pilot sustainability competition could be conducted to test various methodologies for implementing a wider University of Maryland program later. Steps could include making available data on energy use and water use that is currently available by building for much of the University of Maryland campus. It also may be possible to measure recycling in terms of weight per occupant in the buildings. Below are some possibilities for program design.

Managing the Program

The competition could be led and implemented primarily by the Department of Resident Life. Another option would be to form a student club or joint effort of various academic departments to create a student-run organization. This group could work in conjunction with the Department of Resident Life to design and carry out the program. This would relieve Resident Life staff of the burden of running the program while providing an educational and leadership opportunity for students. The EcoHouse may be a good resource for finding interested students.

5 Eco-Olympics 2006. Retrieved May 5, 2009 from the Duke University website: http://www.duke.edu/web/env_alliance/games/.

44

Education and Outreach

The University of Maryland Draft Climate Action Plan suggests education and outreach should be a focus of campus efforts to address greenhouse gas emissions.6 A dorm competition will require education and advertising in order to inform students of the mechanisms of the competition and ways to participate. The education portion of the program could include the following:

posters and decorations around the dorms, t-shirts advertising the competition, information sessions led by community and residential assistants, film presentations and guest speakers on sustainability and efficiency, eco-trivia nights and other events to teach students about the conservation and

sustainability.

Many of these methods would be inexpensive and simple to organize. The Duke University Eco-Olympics budget included $140 for supplies such as decorations, $1776 for advertising, as well as a speaker and film component that cost $1000.7

Measurement of Results

One option for measuring results could be through a point system. Points could be based on a variety of events, including energy and water use reductions. If the program was expanded to include greenhouse gas emissions, recycling efforts or water conservation, successes in these areas could warrant points. Additionally, participation in program events such as attending environmental talks or films could generate points. The points could be weighted to reflect the contribution of the event towards sustainability goals. One potential problem with this strategy is that a point system could be more subject to ties. It could also generate controversy over how to weight particular events or accomplishments.

Costs/Issues

Care should be taken to design the program in such a way that it motivates high student participation. An organizer of the Oberlin College dorm energy competition commented on some of difficulties experienced with the program. The student warned that having too much emphasis on events during the competition detracted from advertising efforts. As a result, students were confused about the purpose of the program. Additionally, the program suffered somewhat from the lack of an interesting prize, so it may be worth investing substantial resources into rewards.8

Recommendations

6 The University of maryland draft climate action plan. (2009). Retrieved May 4, 2009 from the Office of Sustainability website: http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/UMD_CAP_Draft.pdf.7 Sample Eco-Olympics budget. Retrieved May 4, 2009 from Dorm vs. Dorm Sustainability Competition website: http://www2.aashe.org/competitions/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/sample-budget.pdf.8 Lessons learned section. Retrieved May 4, 2009 from Dorm vs. Dorm Sustainability Competition website: http://itsgettinghotinhere.org/2008/04/28/oberlin-ecolympics-wrap-up/#more-4671.

45

The University of Maryland should form a pilot sustainability competition program based on the best practices of other institutions in hopes of designing a more robust program in the future. Through a full fledged dorm competition involving many aspects of sustainability, the university can help students develop sustainable habits while saving money and resources for the university and enhancing the university's sustainability profile.

46

MEMO 8: Occupancy Lighting Sensors

TO: Ann Wylie FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Occupancy Sensors

Current Status on Campus

Lighting accounts for a significant part of the University’s total energy costs. The Hallway Lighting Project, which started in 2008, replaced T8 fluorescent light fixtures with T5 volumetric light fixtures and also reduced lighting levels. The project decreased total hallway lighting energy use by 80 percent.9 However, since hallway lighting only makes up about 12 percent of total lighting energy use10, significant potential remains to reduce lighting energy consumption.

Occupancy sensors use different technologies to detect the presence or absence of people in a space and automatically turn lights on or off with the room’s use. The most effective locations for occupancy sensors are areas that are used infrequently or unpredictably. Three types of sensors include passive infrared (PIR), ultrasonic, and dual-technology. The different types of sensors have different applications for which they are best suited depending on specific characteristics of the space. EPA estimates that potential energy savings from occupancy sensors are 13-50 percent for private offices; 40-46 percent for classrooms; 30-90 percent for restrooms; and 30-80 percent for corridors.11 Occupancy sensors have already been installed in some buildings on the Maryland campus and are being considered for other areas.

Best Practices

Tufts University initiated a lighting project in 2001 that included installing motion sensors in 14 buildings. The project, which also equipped the buildings with compact fluorescent bulbs, resulted in savings of about 900,000 kWh per year, and had a payback period of just 2.5 years.12

Alternatives

The University could expand efforts to install occupancy sensors in buildings across campus. The first step could involve systematically identifying areas where installing occupancy sensors would produce the greatest savings. Since potential savings vary due to room size and other factors, the most cost-effective strategy might involve addressing specific types of areas such as restrooms or large classrooms rather than whole buildings. A priority listing of rooms and buildings to receive occupancy sensors could be established for the entire campus. Available funds for occupancy sensors could be allocated in part based on this priority listing. University departments and divisions that installed occupancy sensors, and achieved corresponding

9 University of Maryland. (2008).Campus Sustainability Report 2008.10 Sleiman, J. (2008). Campus hallways to receive new lights. Diamondback Online. http://media.www.diamondbackonline.com/media/storage/paper873/news/2008/02/08/News/Campus.Hallways.To.Receive.New.Lights-3197534.shtml11North Carolina State Energy Office. (2004). http://www.energync.net/resources/docs/pubs/occupancy.pdf12 Tufts University. (2008). Lighting Upgrades and Motion Sensors. http://sustainability.tufts.edu/?pid=37

47

reductions in total energy use, should be allowed to share in the financial benefits of the resulting energy cost savings.

Costs/Issues

The rate of financial return to installing occupancy sensors is often high because the costs of the sensors is low. Costs for occupancy sensors vary depending on the type of technology, wattage, and other factors, but usually range from about $50 to $150 per unit.13 Payback periods for installing occupancy sensors typically range from about 0.5 to 5 years depending on the size of the room and the energy savings potential.

The upfront cost of occupancy sensors could be a hurdle even though the price of sensors is not great and the payback period is relatively short. One potential financing mechanism is the State Energy Loan Program (SALP), which provides zero-interest loans to State agencies for energy efficiency improvements. The Maryland Energy Administration (MEA) recently increased the total annual amount available for loans from $1 million to $1.8 million.14 Since the cost of an occupancy sensor is frequently about $100, even a modest loan could allow the University to purchase several thousand occupancy sensors -- assuming Facilities Management could provide the labor for the installations. This would generate substantial energy savings campuswide.

Recommendation

The University should increase existing efforts to install occupancy sensors across campus by first identifying buildings and specific room types that would produce the greatest savings. The University should also explore potential financing options including the State Energy Loan Program. The University should examine the possibility of establishing its own revolving loan program for occupancy sensors. University departments and divisions that make special efforts to install occupancy sensors should be able to share in the energy cost savings generated.

13 California Department of General Services. (2009). http://www.green.ca.gov/EPP/building/sensors.htm14 Maryland Energy Administration. (2009). http://energy.maryland.gov/incentives/state-local/stateagencyloan.asp

48

MEMO 9: Smart Meters

TO: Ann Wylie FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy RE: Smart Meters

Current Status on Campus

Energy at the University is currently provided by facilities management via the combined heat and power plant and regional utility companies. Energy bills are paid by either the state, for state-supported departments, or by the departments themselves, for self-supported departments. At the level of most state-supported departments, and especially the level of buildings and individuals, there is little information available regarding energy consumption and cost. Providing and funding energy on campus is centralized and there are few incentives for individuals or departments to control or reduce energy consumption.

Behavior modification policies designed to help members of the campus community make better energy decisions are an integral part of the University’s draft Climate Action Plan (CAP).15 A powerful method for changing behavior is to make the behavior you wish to change and its implications more transparent. Currently, energy consumption and cost at the University is opaque at the level of departments, buildings and individuals. Two options for making University energy consumption and cost more transparent are smart metering and an energy consumption website. Smart meters are electricity meters with the capability to monitor electricity consumption in real-time.

Best Practices

The University of Michigan’s website, http://www.planetblue.umich.edu/, displays past electricity, energy and water consumption and cost by building. The website is easy to use and there is an abundance of information. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (the stimulus bill) included language to install 40 million smart meters in American homes.16

Alternatives

The University could aggresivly adopt smart meters by installing them in all buildings with multiple submeters in each building. An alternative and less costly approach, however, would be to select one campus building to serve as a pilot project. The concern with widespread installation of smart meters on-campus is that it wouldn’t be cost-effective, though it would be very informative and likely to create some behavior modification.

15 University of Maryland, Office of Sustainability. http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=CAP_feedback

16 Katie Fehrenbacher. Business Week. “Bringing Smart Energy Home.” April 15, 2009. http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/apr2009/tc20090414_446611.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_technology

Installing a few smart meters in one building (perhaps one per floor) could provide enough information to create behavior-driven energy savings in a cost-effective manner. A pilot project would illuminate how and when smart meters could be effective on campus and ensure a campus smart meter policy doesn’t sink under its’ own weight. Additionally, watt-hour meters, which display electricty use of individual appliances, would be beneficial to the campus community.17 Students and staff should know more precisely how their appliances consume energy and a watt-hour meter will do this. At around $30 per watt-meter, the University could purchase several of these and make them available to building managers for loan or create a rental program through the University library.

Smart meter data may be difficult to interpret for faculty, staff and students if placed out of context – this will limit how individuals respond and react. Such a problem reveals the need to supplement smart meters with a tool that conveys electricity data online. The internet is very accessible and a website can be structured in a user-friendly way that puts data in-context and offers additional information that will help the campus community understand the consequences of their actions.

Smart meters would allow the University to reexamine its budgetary procedures for energy consumption. Each University department or division might be given a quota of a “sustainable” level of energy consumption, tailored to is specific circumstances. The energy cost of this quota would be paid centrally. Use of electricity above the quota might be charged directly to the relevant University department or division. Use of electricity below the quota might generate a money rebate that would be distributed to the relevant University department or division.

Costs/ Issues

Ideally, smart meters will make visible what wasn’t before and open the door to better energy decisions on-campus. With enough smart meters in place, the potential would exist for significant energy savings. Realistically, the centralized structure of energy provision and funding on-campus will remain an obstacle to behavior modifications. Because most campus departments, aside from the self-support units, do not pay for their own electricity, there is no incentive to cut back on consumption. The financial driver for behavior modification is the reason why most advocates of smart meters see them being most effective in private homes as opposed to shared, commercial buildings. This is probably why

A hurdle to creating an online, energy use viewer is cost of time and money. If developed properly, then such a tool will require considerable programming. Maintenance of the site will require constant communication between the Office of Technology and Facilities Management and could necessitate the creation of at least one new job (granted this could be viewed as a benefit in a time of high unemployment). Furthermore, the site by itself won’t create energy savings unless it is advertised and coupled with opportunities to apply the data (i.e., dorm energy saving competition).

17 Smarthome.com. http://www.smarthome.com/11392/UPM-Dual-Rate-Energy-Meter-with-LCD-Display-EM130/p.aspx

50

Energy report cards will only go so far in providing useful information. First, report cards will only show past energy use and not real-time use. Also, report cards will be targeted at departments and not buildings; departments can be spread across buildings and buildings vary by age, location and occupancy, so it will be useful to have building-specific information. With real-time information about energy consumption at the level of buildings or possibly floors or rooms, campus faculty, staff and students can better connect their actions to an outcome.

Recommendations

The University of Maryland should select a building to serve as a pilot project for smart meter installation. To supplement smart meter installation, the University should also purchase some watt-hour meters. Facilities Management could monitor the new data alongside building occupants; campus organizations could raise awareness about smart meters and gauge the options for expanding smart meters to the entire campus. The funding system for electricity use at the University could be revisited to provide incentives directly to individual departments, buildings, and divisions to reduce energy use.

The University of Maryland Office of Technology should work with Facilities Management to create a site similar to the University of Michigan site. If possible, the website should include real-time data by building; this would have a number of useful applications including dorm vs. dorm electricity saving competitions.

51

MEMO 10 – Fume Hoods

TO: Ann WylieFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Fume Hoods

Current Status on Campus

There are about 750 fume hoods on campus.18 Fume hoods represent a significant source of outside airflow, and many older fume hoods have no controls for airflow rate. Reducing airflow saves fan energy and the energy needed to condition the outside air to adjust temperature and humidity.19 Lab spaces are required to have a high air exchange rates, but oftentimes the air pushed through fume hoods far exceeds these minimum requirements.20 According to the Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, a typical fume hood in the U.S. uses more than three times as much energy as a home.21

Two general types of fume hoods are constant air volume (CAV) hoods and variable air volume (VAV) hoods. CAV hoods move the same amount of air regardless of the sash position, meaning that lowering the sash does not decrease energy use. In contrast, with VAV hoods, the volume of air exhausted depends on the face opening, meaning that the larger the fume hood opening, the more energy needed to condition the air.22 About 140 of the fume hoods on campus are VAV hoods and these are mostly in Chemistry- Wing 3.23

The University is currently addressing fume hood energy use through whole-building approaches, such as energy performance contracts, that do not specifically target fume hoods but rather high energy-using buildings.24 Facilities Management has also started adjusting units with high exhaust volumes.25

Best Practices

Harvard implemented a “Shut the Sash” campaign after finding that most fume hoods were wide open all the time and that most researchers did not realize that they could reduce energy use by keeping the sash closed. The campaign involved placing “Shut the Sash” magnets on each fume hood in five building as well as outreach and regular visual audits. The campaign included a contest among labs during one month with a prize. The average sash opening dropped form 12 inches to 2 inches and saved over $100,000 in annual energy costs.26

18 Benas, C. Personal Communication. 21 May 2009.19 White, G. Personal Interview. 14 Apr. 2009.20 MIT. (2009). Fume Hoods. http://sustainability.mit.edu/projects/fume-hoods21 Lawrence Berkeley Lab. (2009). Laboratory Fume Hood Energy Model. http://fumehoodcalculator.lbl.gov/22 MIT. (2009). Fume Hoods. http://sustainability.mit.edu/projects/fume-hoods23 Benas, C. Personal Communication. 21 May 2009.24 Corry, S. Personal Interview. 20 Apr. 2009.25 Benas, C. Personal Communication. 21 May 2009.26 Harvard University. (2009). HMS Shut the Sash Campaign. http://green.harvard.edu/hms/shut-the-sash

52

The MIT Chemistry Department implemented a campaign to reduce energy use from VAV fume hoods by providing lab users with monthly feedback on energy use using data from fume hood sash position sensors. As a result of the campaign, sashes were lowered by 26% for a net savings of about $41,000 per year for the department.27

Alternatives

One option to reduce fume hood energy use would be to continue the current strategy of addressing fume hoods through whole-building approaches. An alternative would be to form a working group to develop a plan to address energy use from all fume hoods on campus. A first step in this process would be to develop an inventory of all fume hoods on campus and to conduct a survey of the existing manner of their use. Potential energy savings to the University resulting from more sustainable use of fume hoods could then be estimated.

The University could also consider implementing a pilot informational campaign in one building with a large number of VAV fume hoods to evaluate the potential to reduce fume hood energy use through greater education and awareness. For an informational campaign to be most successful, it would be important to be able to measure individual fume hood energy use and communicate energy information to users.

Costs/Issues

Since whole-building approaches are beginning to address fume hood energy use, it would be important to evaluate the potential impact of this strategy compared to an initiative specifically targeting fume hoods. Adjusting the exhaust volume of fume hoods requires system-wide air balancing, which increases the necessary labor. Since only about 20 percent of the fume hoods on campus are VAV hoods, the current potential to reduce fume hood energy use through behavioral approaches is limited. Finally, financing options for any large-scale initiative targeting fume hoods would need to be explored.

Recommendations

The University should develop a comprehensive plan for systematically reducing energy use from fume hoods across campus. This plan should include estimated costs and savings of potential strategies. The University should also consider developing a pilot informational campaign to encourage energy reductions among individual users of VAV hoods.

27 MIT. (2009). Fume Hoods. http://sustainability.mit.edu/projects/fume-hoods

53

MEMO 11: “Solar Power” for Clothes Drying

TO: Linda Clement FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: “Solar Power” for Clothes Drying

Current Status on Campus

The University of Maryland has 37 residence facilities housing 8,357 students and 20 of these buildings have coin-operated laundry facilities. The university residences have 149 laundry dryers that each consume 5,320 watts per hour. The dryers can be used for a fee of $1.25 for one hour and $0.25 for each additional 15 minutes. At a rate of $0.14 per kWh, residential facility dryers cost $108,500 in 2008.

Research by a University of Maryland graduate student recently estimated that students dry one load of clothes per week in the University’s electric dryers. Assuming an equal number of washing and drying loads, 122,545 dryer cycles ran in 2008 and required 651 Mwh of electricity. Total electricity consumption of all kinds in all residential facilities was metered at 11,430 Mwh in 2008. These figures imply that clothes dryers accounted for as much as 15% of total electricity used in University dorms. Some part of this large consumption of energy could be saved by making a clothes line drying option available to students.

Currently, the University of Maryland does not encourage line drying and provides no laundry lines to students. It might be possible to provide fold-up racks for drying in individual rooms but such racks are not easily available at present. The university prohibits hanging laundry lines from sprinkler heads and any outdoor lines. The window screens also prevent any lines from being hung out windows.

A contractor operates the laundry facilities and returns much of the revenue to the university ($297,000 was returned from total laundry fee collections of $337,000 in 2008). Subtracting electricity costs from the previous revenue estimate, the university generated $25,000 from dryers, which helped subsidize the cost of students living in dorms.28

Best Practices

Outside the University, Project Laundry List, a non-profit organization, works to encourage what it terms the “right to dry.” A typical household can save 10-15% of its energy consumption by hanging clothes to dry rather than running an electric dryer. Many communities, however, ban the use of clothes lines. Project Laundry List has worked to remove these bans and promotes their cause through their National Hanging Out Day event.29 As sustainability measures, three states have enacted legislation – and others are considering it -- banning private community associations from adopting rules to prohibit the use of clothes lines.

28 Balachandran, Suchitra. (2009). The economics of dryers and laundry lines in residential facilities at the University of Maryland campus. Paper for PUAF740: Introduction to Environmental Policy.29 Project Laundry List. http://www.laundrylist.org/

In Southern California Pomona College began a green laundry program in the spring of 2008. First, an online survey was conducted to determine student interest in line drying options. Using this information, two projects were designed and implemented in 2008. First, eight large drying racks in five campus laundry rooms were installed. This included 420 feet of clothesline which cost $1500. The second project involved the purchase of 25 foldable, personal-sized drying racks. The racks were loans to students for use in their rooms for the academic year. The projects were funded by the Pomona College President's Sustainability Fund.

Pomona also is building a LEED Gold-certified residence hall with a laundry room to be outfitted with 150 feet of line drying space. Education programs also have been designed to instruct students on the benefits of smart laundry practices. The education programs mainly consisted of posters in the laundry rooms. Pomona estimated a decrease of 2.87 mTCO2e from the drying racks, a negligible impact on greenhouse gas emissions compared to the total college emissions. However, the racks have a short payback from energy savings, only 5.3 years. A more long term benefit will be helping students form environmentally-friendly laundry habits. Many Europeans do not own clothes dryers even if they can afford them. The main reason Americans do not use line drying is because it is not culturally encouraged. Line drying also can leave clothes feeling fresher and can help prolong the life of student clothing. Gas-electric dryers can also over dry clothes, weakening their fibers.30

Alternatives

Designing and implementing a line drying program for the University of Maryland dorms would be a low cost way to save money, reduce energy use and greenhouse gas emissions, and encourage better student energy use habits. To begin, a survey should be conducted to determine how many students would participate in the program and if they had any reservations about using the system.

The following possibilities for designing a clothes drying program come from the Pomona College report:

Drying racks permanently installed in laundry rooms Racks available for semester-long checkout Include racks as standard-issue “furniture” for suite common rooms Drying racks permanently installed in residence hall hallways or “nooks and crannies” Drying racks permanently installed in designated “air drying rooms”

Traditional dorm buildings, such as those on North Campus with laundry rooms, may be best suited for installing clotheslines in various locations within the buildings. Students would also need access to clothespins in order use the lines. Bags could be provided to each student in the beginning of the academic year. Several other apartment-style dorm buildings have individual

30 Hodge, Chelsea. (February 2009). Hanging It Out On Campus: A Guide to Providing Line-Drying Options to College Students and Promoting Other Eco-Friendly Laundry Habits, Pomona College Report.

55

laundry rooms (for example, Courtyards and South Campus Commons). These dorms would be ideal for a drying rack rental program.

Any program should include an education program to spread awareness about the program and explain to students the benefits of line drying clothes. The dorm Community Assistants and Residential Assistants could work together to produce posters about the program and conduct short information sessions on its benefits.

On an experimental basis, the students in EcoHouse might be offered the option of installing outdoor clothes lines for their drying use.

Costs/Issues

Because of the low capital cost and short payback period, cost should not be a problem for implementing this program. A rental system could encounter problems if racks are not returned or are not kept in good condition. This could be avoided through asking students to leave a deposit to be returned at the end of the year. Positive incentives could also be used, such as giving out food or prizes during move-out day to students who return their racks.

The Office of Facilities Management and Residential Facilities would need to determine the feasibility of installing racks in laundry rooms. Considerations should include fire safety laws, the strength of the wall you want to install the racks on, and institutional policies.

Another potential problem is theft. Students may be concerned about leaving clothes unattended to dry in a common area. The rack rental service for use within dorm rooms may be a better option if theft becomes an issue.

Recommendations

The University of Maryland should survey students on their willingness to participate in various types of “solar energy” clothes drying programs. This should be followed with a pilot program in several dorms to gauge actual student participation. Ultimately, the university should implement a robust clothes drying program covering all student dorms and laundry rooms that achieves the goal of reducing student resource consumption at a savings to the university.

56

MEMO 12: Geothermal Heat Pumps

To: Ann WylieFrom: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRe: Geothermal Heat Pumps

Current Status on Campus

Geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) take advantage of the fact that the temperature below ground remains constant year round and thus cooler than outdoor air in the summer and warmer in the winter -- and thus can buildings can use the Earth’s thermal energy to heat and cool them. Depending on heating and cooling needs, GHPs move heat from ground energy sources or to ground heat sinks. According to the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, GHPs move between three and five times as much energy between the building and the ground than they consume while doing so.

GHPs are mentioned (along with solar) as a possible alternative energy strategy in the Climate Action Plan. The benefits of GHPs are that they use 25%–50% less electricity than conventional heating or cooling systems and improve humidity control. According to the EPA, geothermal heat pumps can reduce energy consumption—and corresponding emissions—up to 44% compared to air-source heat pumps and up to 72% compared to electric resistance heating with standard air-conditioning equipment. GHPs also maintain about 50% relative indoor humidity, making GHPs very effective in humid areas. Also, shallow ground temperatures are relatively constant throughout the United States and geothermal heat pumps (GHPs) can be effectively used almost anywhere.Geothermal systems can consist of either vertical or horizontal loops. Horizontal systems require more land area but are usually less expensive to install.31 Vertical systems often utilize boreholes that are 150-250 feet deep, but designs are flexible. In locations where it is not possible to drill several hundred feet deep, systems can consist of a larger number of shallower wells. Wells for geothermal systems do not need to be directly adjacent to buildings, and they can be placed in locations such as parking lots.32 There are currently no geothermal systems on the University of Maryland campus.

Best Practices

The University of Wisconsin-Madison is currently constructing a new research building that will include a geothermal heating and cooling system. The cost of the system is about $1.25 million, and the system is expected to function for at least 50 years. It is estimated that the geothermal system will reduce annual energy use by 10 percent.

The University of Illinois at Chicago is in the process of renovating several of its older buildings. The first renovation of a 15,000 square foot building included the installation of a geothermal

31 Federal Energy Management Program. (2009). How to Buy an Energy-Efficient Ground Source Heat Pump. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/femp/procurement/eep_groundsource_heatpumps.html

32 Scott, M. Personal Interview. 20 Apr. 2009.

57

system. After the first geothermal installation, the University began work to expand the same system to two nearby buildings. Funding for the building renovations is being provided by student maintenance fund assessment monies and grants from the Illinois Clean Energy Foundation.

Ball State University’s Board of Trustees recently approved a $66 million plan to replace the University’s four coal-fired boilers with a campus-wide geothermal system. The project will involve drilling 3,750 boreholes. The Indiana General Assembly had previously allocated $41 million to replace Ball State’s current heating and cooling system. The University plans to request that the money instead be directed towards construction of the geothermal system, which should provide enough funds for the first phase of the project. The second phase of the project will be funded with the remainder of the State funds, operational savings, and special repair and renovation funds. Ball State is also hoping to receive stimulus funds, which would allow the conversion to the geothermal system to be completed sooner. The University expects to save about $2 million in energy costs each year once the system is complete.

Alternatives

The University could conduct a study to determine the feasibility of installing geothermal systems on campus. This would include an analysis of the geology, building load requirements, land area availability, and costs and efficiency gains. The advantage of conducting a campus-wide analysis rather than an analysis of a single building involves the potential lower cost and better efficiency of a centralized system.

The University could also consider implementing a small pilot project by installing a geothermal system in a new building or as part of a building renovation. This would provide the ability to evaluate the geology, measure actual energy savings, and develop a business case for additional geothermal installations.

Costs/Issues

A three-ton geothermal heat pump system (large enough for a typically sized home) would cost roughly $7,500 and the cost of drilling could be anywhere from $10,000 to $30,000, or more depending on the terrain and other local factors. Also specific geological, hydrological, and spatial characteristics of the land will determine the best type of ground loop (underground piping for the system – there are a variety of options some cheaper than others).

It is generally easier to install a geothermal system in a new building than in an existing building, partly because of the space needed for the installation. During construction of a new building, vertical pipes for a geothermal system can be installed along with I-beams.33

Since the steam required for heating is supplied by the University’s Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant, the efficiency gains from a geothermal system would likely be less than if a geothermal system were replacing conventional heating and cooling systems. In addition,

33 Hwang, Y. Personal Interview. 24 Mar. 2009.

58

because of the large upfront cost of geothermal systems, potential financing mechanisms would need to be explored.

Recommendations

The University should conduct a design study to determine the feasibility of installing geothermal systems on campus and consider installing a geothermal system in one building as a pilot project. To address the challenge of the high upfront cost of geothermal systems, the University should explore the option of including geothermal systems in energy performance contracts. This approach would allow the University to use the energy savings from the geothermal system to pay back a loan for the initial investment.

59

MEMO 13: Energy Performance Contracting

TO: Ann Wylie FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Energy Performance Contracting

Current Status on Campus

Energy Performance Contracts (ESCOs) involve in principle the installation of energy saving devices by an outside private company and the payment to the company for this service through the savings in energy costs thereby generated. Both parties benefit financially if the resulting energy cost savings exceed the costs of the energy efficiency measures undertaken.

The Maryland Board of Public Works recently approved a $20 million energy performance contract with Johnson Controls for the College Park campus. The project is being financed through the State’s lease-purchase program. Johnson Controls will install a variety of energy efficiency measures in nine buildings, and the project is expected to reduce energy use by 22 percent in those buildings.34 The contract is for a period of 15 years with a two-year construction period and guaranteed energy savings beginning in the third year. Constellation Energy has also submitted a performance contract proposal that includes five buildings in addition to 11 dorms.35

The Maryland Treasurer’s Office provides financing for energy performance contracts through the Energy Performance Lease-Purchase Program. Under the program, the Treasurer’s Office obtains a loan at a lower interest rate than would likely be available to an individual State agency. Lease payments are made from resulting energy savings. In Fiscal Year 2008, the Treasurer’s Office procured a new source of funding for $60 million for State agency energy performance contracts.36 In addition to the College Park project, approximately $12 million of the original $60 million remains for financing other agency projects. The Treasurer’s Office is currently preparing a new RFP/IFB for future energy performance contract master lease financing.37

While the State can obtain financing at lower interest rates through lease-purchase agreements, energy service companies (ESCOs) are also usually able to provide other sources of project financing. For example, Johnson Controls has relationships with financing institutions and can obtain lower rates for State agency energy-efficiency projects through municipal lease financing.38

Best Practices34 University of Maryland. http://www.newsdesk.umd.edu/uniini/release.cfm?ArticleID=185235 Corry, S. Personal Interview. 11 Mar. 2009.36 State of Maryland Treasurer’s Office. http://www.treasurer.state.md.us/DebtMgmt.htm37 Johnson-Malcolm, K. Personal Communication. 24 Apr. 2009.38 Barrett, R. Personal Interview. 20 Apr. 2009.

The University of Baltimore has an energy performance contract with Energy Systems Group (ESG) and aims to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent by 2010. The upgrades are expected to save about $11 million over the next 15 years.39 The University of Maryland Center for Environmental Science (UMCES) Horn Point Laboratory recently signed a performance contract with a subsidiary of Constellation Energy that is expected to reduce energy use by 15 percent through improvements to multiple buildings.40

The University of Arkansas signed a $20.9 million performance contract with ESG in 2008 to reduce energy consumption and address deferred maintenance in 56 buildings. Improvements will be made over a two-year period and are expected to reduce energy consumption by 30 percent. Under the contract, ESG will also work with university relations to implement a communications campaign about energy-saving initiatives including information about construction schedules, program benefits, and training on the use of the new equipment and controls.41

The State of Illinois passed the Public University Energy Conservation Act in 2005 requiring state institutions to pursue energy savings through energy service contracts – the bill contains no explicit language on guaranteed funding from the State of Illinois.42 The State of Maryland could adopt a similar measure, including the University campus in its scope.

Alternatives

One option for the University would be to complete the implementation phase of the Johnson Controls performance contract and the approval process for the Constellation contract before beginning any expansion of the use of performance contracts. This would allow the University to monitor any hurdles associated with the projects and to develop a set of best practices for future projects. These best practices might include educational strategies targeting building occupants and strategies for coordinating the construction process in occupied buildings.

An alternative strategy would be to initiate a significant expansion of the use of performance contracts within the next year. Since performance contracts involve issues such as building operations and the University’s budget and debt affordability limits, the University could form a working group to develop a plan for expanding the use of performance contracts while addressing any such challenges.

Costs/Issues

39 University of Baltimore. http://www.ubalt.edu/template.cfm?page=308840 Constellation Energy. http://ir.constellation.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=37764341 University of Arkansas. http://dailyheadlines.uark.edu/14144.htm42 Illinois General Assembly. Public University Energy Conservation Act. http://www.ilga.gov/LEGISLATION/ILCS/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1065&ChapAct=110%26nbsp%3BILCS%26nbsp%3B62%2F&ChapterID=18&ChapterName=HIGHER+EDUCATION&ActName=Public+University+Energy+Conservation+Act.

61

Energy performance contracting provides a structure for the University to implement energy efficiency projects without any upfront cost. However, the University only has verbal clarification from the Maryland State Department of Budget and Management (DBM) that the University will be able to use the energy savings from performance contracts to make lease payments. According to a budget examiner at DBM, the lease payments for performance contracts are included in the University’s budget request as part of its total lease payment commitments.43 In addition, in a communication to the Department of General Services (DGS), DBM stated that “several Maryland universities have already participated in performance contracts and they have fully met their loan repayment responsibilities within their operating appropriation.”44

Recommendations

The University should pursue a substantial expansion of the use of performance contracts to reduce energy use throughout the campus and help meet the goals of the Draft Climate Action Plan. The first step should involve arranging a formal meeting with the State’s DBM to clarify any budget issues related to the University’s implementation of performance contracts. This could involve encouraging DBM to develop formal written guidelines that specify that the University is able to use the energy savings to make lease payments. The University should also develop a set of best practices based on the implementation of the Johnson Controls project to guide future performance contracts.

43 Uhl, C. Personal Interview. 5 May 2009.44 Jabaji, H. Personal Communication. 23 Apr. 2009.

62

MEMO 14: State Budgetary Treatment of Energy Saving Investments

TO: Ross Stern CC: Ann Wylie, Linda Clement FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: State Budgetary Treatment of Energy Saving Investments

Current Status on Campus

The University of Maryland, College Park and other USM institutions are in the midst of executing various energy saving initiatives. At UMCP, the administration has adopted several energy saving policies including participation in energy service contracts (as described in Memo 13) and a commitment to construct only energy efficient buildings. The entire portfolio of energy saving policies should reduce energy consumption on campus and lead to a net cost savings from reductions in energy use.

The University is composed of self-support and state-support units. The distinction is critical as self-support units realize the benefits of energy savings directly through lower energy bills; state-support units, however, are unable to realize the benefits of energy savings because funding for energy comes from the state. For example, at least one self-support unit, Dining Services, has signed an energy service contract. Under the contract an energy service company will audit and retrofit the Diner and its multiple kitchen units. Because Dining Services is a self-support unit, savings will be kept by Dining Services. For the state-supported component of the University, the motives to participate in energy service contracts and other forms of energy savings are less clear as any decrease in energy use (and cost) could met with subsequent state budget cuts of a corresponding magnitude.

As a result, there is no strong financial incentive at present to reduce energy use on campus among the state-supported components of the University. The lack of stronger incentives limits how effective energy saving policies can be and will act as a barrier to needed energy reductions.

Restructuring of energy funding is crucial to carbon reduction efforts as well because the most cost-effective reductions in campus greenhouse gas emissions will likely come through reduced energy consumption as opposed to increased procurement of clean energy. Along the same lines, the University will need to procure more clean energy to become climate neutral, which will require substantial funding to generate and/or procure clean energy because of price premiums. In general, decreasing demand for energy saves money while increasing the supply of clean energy costs money. If major strides are going to made to address climate change in Maryland, then the University of Maryland System and the State of Maryland as a whole need to provide positive financial signals to encourage energy conservation in educational institutions – and thus without the threat of cutting budgets when energy savings are achieved.

Best Practices

A new scheme for funding public colleges and universities based on carbon and energy reductions is under development in Britain. Released earlier this year, the national level proposal from the Director of Universities would increase capital funding for public colleges and universities that decrease their energy consumption.45

Alternatives

A similar scheme could work in Maryland. The University System of Maryland via the State of Maryland allocates funds based on performance measures, need, and projected expenses, among other factors. Maryland would be a leader in the field of higher education if it included carbon and energy reductions as performance measures and rewarded those institutions achieving significant reductions (e.g., total or per capita) with additional funding that could be used for other purposes.

An alternative to the reward-based funding system is to stabilize current levels of energy financing through guaranteed baseline funding. The State is averse to guarantees of this nature, but with something like a revolving loan program, Maryland would not have to raise taxes to secure energy funding.

For example, if all USM institutions were required to participate in energy performance contracts and financing were available, then in the long-run, public institutions would be spending less on energy each year. The difference between past energy funding and current energy expenditures could go into a fund that is accessible to only public universities. Most years the energy savings fund would be used to help USM institutions invest in clean energy and in years with fiscal uncertainties, the fund could be used to help institutions meet basic energy needs.

Costs/ Issues

With the need to balance the state budget and limit deficit spending, there is a case to be made that energy savings from public institutions should go back into the general pool of state funds and be redistributed to other important programs or used for debt service. Also, if a policy is adopted that rewards colleges and universities for reducing their greenhouse gas emissions and energy use, then the state would have to generate additional revenue or cut program spending elsewhere. Last, to require all public Maryland colleges and universities to participate in energy services contracts may be expensive and a less cost-effective policy relative to the alternatives. Every college and university is different and policies should be avoided that assume whats good for one institution is good for all institutions.

Recommendation

45 Businessgreen.com. “Government funding to reward greenest universities.” http://www.businessgreen.com/business-green/news/2234921/government-funding-reward

64

Regardless of the issues identified above, there is strong cause to reconsider and restructure the present method for state funding of public university energy budgets. All of the institutions in the University System of Maryland need to reduce energy consumption, but should be able to achieve financial gains by doing so. The USM needs to use its collective power to make this case to the State Legislature.

For now, the University of Maryland, College Park, is in a strong position as the flagship institution of the State to bring the issue and potential solutions to the USM Office and State legislators. The University should initiate dialogue with the abovementioned stakeholders to develop policy options that would best address the energy budgetary issues at hand. Additionally, the University should place this issue high on its agenda by lobbying State legislators before the next General Assembly.

65

MEMO 15: Renewable Energy Certificates

TO: Student Government Association CC: Ann Wylie, Linda Clement FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy RE: Renewable Energy Certificates

Current Status on Campus

As global leaders reach consensus that climate change demands swift and formidable action, nations blessed with wind, solar, and geothermal resources have installed increasing renewable energy capacity. Fossil fuel-rich nations like the United States, however, have struggled to meet demand for clean energy as public opinion has turned against coal, oil, and other carbon-intensive sources. On a state and local level, some governments and institutions in “dead zones” bereft of green resources have purchased renewable energy certificates (RECs) to stimulate renewable energy production around the country.

The University of Maryland is now considering the prospect of REC purchases. Without the solar, wind, or geothermal potential to generate on-campus green electricity, the school can use RECs to meet the demands for a decrease in carbon intensity mandated by the University’s draft Climate Act Plan (CAP)46.

In April 2007, a majority of University of Maryland undergraduates participating in a non-binding referendum voted to boost student fees by $12 per year “in order to fund the purchase of clean, renewable energy.” 47 In September 2008, the Committee for the Review of Student Fees approved the fee; students will begin paying the “clean energy fee” in fall 2009.

A REC is simply the official recognition received by an institution from purchasing green renewal energy either directly from a utility or a REC broker. Although sold in kilowatt hours on the market, a REC does not necessarily represent actual electricity48.

The carbon offset quality of a REC depends on the location of the project and the quality of the local electricity. The more polluting the baseline scenario, the more potential for a wind or hydro-based REC source to cut carbon emissions. It also depends on the season and even the time of day; for peak load demand utilities might switch from cleaner sources to cheaper, more reliable dirty ones. This variability makes accurate carbon offset calculations difficult for RECs49.

46 University of Maryland, Office of Sustainability. http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=CAP_feedback47 2008 Campus Sustainability Report. http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/Campus_Sustainability_Report_2008.pdf 48 Carbon Offsets & RECs. http://greencampus.harvard.edu/cre/offsets.php (Website under construction)49 What’s the difference between Carbon Offsets and Renewable Energy Credits, Anyway? http://www.triplepundit.com/pages/whats-the-diffe.php

Best Practices

If University of Maryland chose to purchase RECs, it would join diverse institutional peers: Yale, Duke, Harvard, the University of Utah, Penn State, Hamilton College, Trinity College, and Warren Wilson College50. For example, Harvard can produce only so much green energy on-site and therefore buys RECs from Sterling Planet at a discounted price, a Georgia-based certified green energy broker that contracts with utilities like Connecticut Power & Light and Pepco Energy Services51.

Alternatives

Green-e, a program administered by the San Francisco-based national nonprofit Center for Resource Solutions, certifies utilities and green power brokers in America as legitimate business actors. Other certification bodies include Environmental Resources Trust (ERT), Climate, Community & Biodiversity Standards (CCBS), Voluntary Carbon Standard (VCS), and the Gold Standard; however, these last four focus primarily on carbon offsets, not RECs52.

Green-e nearly monopolizes the REC certification industry, functioning as a catalyst for rapid growth in REC commerce53. In 2008, Intel led the U.S. private sector in voluntary purchases of Green-e Energy Certified renewable energy with a 1.3 million megawatt-hour (MWh) purchase in January. PepsiCo ranked second; Mohawk paper third54.

In addition to REC purchases, some universities produce on-site renewable energy power to reduce carbon emissions. Or, they invest in “carbon offsets.” Carbon offsets, unlike RECs, include not just green utilities but energy efficiency measures, reforestation, and land use reforms. Carbonfund.org in Silver Spring, Md. provides carbon offsets locally. A legitimate carbon offset is sold by ton of carbon dioxide reduced. Businesses and universities first calculate their carbon footprint then purchase as much as necessary to complete the offset, at a price of $15 to $19 per ton in some recent examples.55

Costs/Issues

Skeptics of the REC industry worry about the potential for overly optimistic and perhaps in some cases even fraudulent calculations. Potential REC purchasers should perform their own screening process of a green power supplier before signing a deal. This screening process should examine the potential supplier’s reputation in the industry, its balance sheet, SEC filings, bond ratings, percentage of renewable energy actually supplied, and the percentage of new or incremental renewable energy supplied. A REC should only cover the portion of renewable energy that is 50 Sterling Planet Colleges Fact Sheet. http://www.sterlingplanet.com/upload/File/Sterling%20Planet%20Colleges%20Fact%20Sheet.pdf 51 Sterling Planet Partners. http://www.sterlingplanet.com/page/partners/; Carbon Offsets & RECS. http://greencampus.harvard.edu/cre/offsets.php (Website under construction)52 Carbon Offset Certification. http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/our_projects/category/Verification/ 53 (“Our Mission.” Center for Resource Solutions. http://www.resource-solutions.org/about.html).54 (“U.S. Businesses Purchase Record Amount of Renewable Energy in 2008.” Green-e Marketplace News Release. January 27, 2009. http://www.resourcesolutions.org/pressreleases/2009/012709.htm).

55 Carbon Offsets & RECs. http://greencampus.harvard.edu/cre/offsets.php (Website under construction)

67

provide above a baseline (of renewable energy in the absence of the REC). Calculations of baselines can be complicated and subject to dispute, sometimes depending in part on hypothetical assumptions.

Critics often reserve their sharpest criticism for the “RPS loophole.” That is, in states such as Maryland legally bound to increase green energy supply by a renewable portfolio standard (RPS), green power purchased in good faith by institutions and businesses may simply contribute to that standard and add zero additional environmental value. “Additionality” is the industry term for the issue of whether green energy purchased actually leads to new net renewable increase in production.

Recommendations

Fortunately, Green-e’s audit process for its certified suppliers is considered reliable and has received increasing national acceptance.56 The Green-e logo cuts time, money, and frustration from the REC screening process: it provides peace of mind for green energy customers in a vital but infant industry. UMD should follow through with its REC clean energy purchasing plan, examining all available Green-e options. Although Maryland produces no commercial-scale renewable power, the university can lend its support to nearby wind projects in West Virginia and Pennsylvania via appropriate REC investments.

56 (EPA “Guide to Purchasing Green Power” (September 2004) “Publications.” Green-e. http://www.green-e.org/publications.shtml)

68

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR STORMWATER

69

The University of Maryland campus contains 1,200 acres within the Anacostia watershed and larger Chesapeake Bay watershed. Both watersheds have benefited from federal environmental legislation such as the Clean Water Act in addition to assertive state-level policy action, including Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Fund. Continually under-addressed for various political and technical reasons, however, non-point source pollution from agricultural and urban sources remains a significant threat to these ecosystems. Both the Anacostia and Chesapeake Bay watersheds are areas of significant environmental decline and objects of major government cleanup efforts at present.

While the federal government and states grapple with how to best address non-point source pollution, a number of municipalities including the District of Columbia and nearby Gaithersberg, Maryland have stepped up to take independent, non-mandatory action. The District of Columbia is currently formulating development criteria that will require newly constructed buildings to remove and/or filter stormwater. The dispersed and intractable nature of non-point source pollution requires decentralized attention; abatement needs to occur from the bottom-up rather than the top-down.

The University of Maryland has taken some first steps in curbing its contribution to non-point source pollution. In 2007, the University of Maryland Potential Water Quality Improvement Study provided “a restoration framework for structural improvements to streams and SWM [stormwater management] ponds for the University’s Capital Improvement program”1. As a follow-up to this report, the Department of Facilities Management developed a Water Quality Action Agenda. This Action Agenda, however, at present is in the list of still to be funded projects of the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), awaiting implementation.

Although funding has been short, a few University restoration projects have addressed storm water runoff on campus. The first 10,000 gallon rain water cistern was installed on campus in the Washington Quad. It collects and holds rainwater and uses a computer controlled drip irrigation system to water the Quad’s native landscaping. A green roof was installed on 6,000 square feet of Cumberland Hall and low-flow toilets, showers, and faucets are replacing older fixtures in the residence halls. Bathroom faucets in the Student Union were replaced with sensor-driven units to save water (70 percent less), electricity, maintenance costs, and to make bathrooms more hygienic. The 100 new faucets in the Union will save approximately 1.2 million gallons of water per year and 29 million BTU of energy from reduced hot water usage.

Yet, there remains much more that the University could do. With increased funding, a path forward would be possible for stormwater improvements. Increased awareness from the campus community is also needed. This section includes policy memos pertinent to the biggest stormwater management issues on campus: attaining additional funding, limiting impervious surfaces and integrating stormwater control infrastructure into future campus planning and development.

1 Coastal Resources Incorporated. University of Maryland Potential Water Quality Improvement Study. May, 2007.

MEMO 16: Impervious Surfaces

TO: Ann WylieFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Impervious Surfaces

Current Status on Campus

The University of Maryland also has a high percentage of impervious surface cover. A 2007 study performed by Coastal Resources Inc. divided the College Park campus into 25 drainage areas and found that the percentage of impervious surface cover ranged from 0 to 78 percent -- with only five drainage areas containing less than 10 percent impervious surface cover.2

Impervious surfaces are any surface that does not permeate precipitation including blacktop and roofs. When rain or snowmelt encounters an impervious surface, it runs downhill accumulating unwanted chemicals or trash along the way before eventually reaching a stormdrain. Impervious surfaces are a facilitator for pollution rather than a pollutant. Impervious surfaces also impact the recharge rate of the Chesapeake Bay by creating frequent large outflow events following storms and discounting the natural replenishment rate.

As a general rule, whenever the amount of impervious surface in a given area is greater than 10 percent, water quality begins to show signs of impairment.3 Maryland has a high percentage of impervious surface due to heavy recent development, especially in the Washington, D.C. – Baltimore corridor. The Chesapeake Bay Program estimates all of the sub-watersheds within the corridor have greater than 10 percent impervious surface cover.4

Best Practices

Some colleges and universities have designed policies that attempt to address and reduce the extent and impact of impervious surfaces. Portland State University, an urban campus in downtown Portland, Oregon, has an estimated 79 percent impervious surface coverage. The University-wide stormwater policy states that new impervious surfaces will not be created unless sufficient drainage capacity is first in place.5 The end goal at PSU is to create no new runoff or effectively, a cap on total stormwater runoff. At the University of North Carolina, a policy of not increasing impervious surface by more than 1 percent (post-planned construction) has been in place since 2008.6

2 Coastal Resources Incorporated. University of Maryland Potential Water Quality Improvement Study. May, 2007.3 The Washington Times. “Maryland Find Fewer Brook Trout.” October 19, 2008. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/oct/19/maryland-finds-fewer-brook-trout/4 Chesapeake Bay Program. Impervious Surfaces. http://www.chesapeakebay.net/impervioussurfaces.aspx?menuitem=146705 Portland State University. Stormwater Management Plan. May, 2005. http://stage.www.pdx.edu/media/s/u/sus_Stormwater_Management_Policy.pdf6Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. Profile of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill. http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_113.php

Alternatives

New policies for addressing impervious surfaces can be technical or strategic. Technical approaches such as low impact development (LID) can involve repairing or building new surface to be pervious. LID can also involve repairing stormwater infrastructure to more efficiently remove runoff. For example, green roofs can be installed on flat roofs and the vegetation will reduce runoff or pervious pavement can replace the existing traditional pavement as it cracks and wears. Replacing open parking lots with parking garages is an effective way of reducing impervious surfaces, as well as having aesthetic and other benefits.

Strategic approaches could include self-imposed restrictions related to campus development policy. For example, an institution could decide it will not develop drainage areas when this will result in more than 10 percent impervious surface cover.

A number of policy opportunities are available for the University of Maryland to establish itself as a leader in managing stormwater, and in particular, mitigating the impact of impervious surfaces. The University must first evaluate its’ land use/development policies and manner of campus growth. The largest and most immediate impact the University can make with regards to impervious surfaces is to reduce further physical expansion of such surfaces, building impervious surface considerations into development plans.

One option is to cap all drainage areas at current total impervious surface levels. Any additions to impervious surfaces in one place would have to provide an “offset” somewhere else on the campus. Another option is to prohibit development in areas with high current impervious surface coverage and to develop only in areas with low impervious surface coverage. A third option is to offset development in one drainage area by designating another area as an impervious surface reduction area; this reduction area will not be developed and will be targeted for improvements that will reduce runoff.

Regardless of the specific policy, a watershed approach is central because each watershed is discrete and unique. A concurrent policy the University could adopt is to modify the stock of existing impervious buildings and parking lots as they become outdated. For this to occur, University administrators would need to set aside additional funds for Facilities Management to procure and operate pervious products such as green roofs. An estimated 65 percent of impervious surfaces are transportation infrastructure with buildings making up most of the rest. Selecting porous asphalt or cement adds roughly 10 to 20% cost on a per unit basis or $2 to $3 per square foot.7 With financial support from University officials and a statement of policy, Facilities Management could begin to roll out these “green” improvements.

Costs/Issues

There are hurdles to advancing any impervious surface mitigation or removal policy. First, the University’s boundaries and divisions are not established by watershed and this will create a major hurdle for policy implementation. Second, pervious surface technologies can be expensive

7 Coastal Resources Incorporated.

72

and require maintenance costs that are currently not factored into the budget. Third, there are several stormwater concerns outside of impervious surfaces that may be worthy of attention and funding first, namely the University needs to develop a 319 plan under the Clean Water Act.

Recommendation

As a part of the Anacostia and Chesapeake Bay watersheds, the University should support their environmental improvement by its own sustainable actions.8 The University should adopt pervious and sustainable technologies such as rain gardens when possible. The Facilities Council should set an impervious surface policy for new construction on campus, limiting or prohibiting net increases in impervious surfaces. The University’s next master plan should address impervious surfaces in a substantive manner.

8 Maryland General Assembly. House Bill 34. Environment – Impervious Surface – Statewide Database. http://mlis.state.md.us/2009rs/fnotes/bil_0004/hb0034.pdf

73

MEMO 17: Green Infrastructure

TO: Ann WylieFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy RE: Green Infrastructure

Current Status on Campus

Green infrastructure including rain barrels, rain gardens, cisterns, green roofs and ground cover control stormwater by reducing and delaying peak flow during storm events. There is green infrastructure on campus including several rain gardens, which have been created through support from Facilities Management and UMD Professor Allen P. Davis. Given the University’s position as a large presence and policy leader in the Chesapeake and Anacostia watersheds, there is further cause to expand green infrastructure on campus through both green development and green renewal of existing infrastructure.

Renovation and maintenance on a campus the size and age of UMD needs to occur frequently as indicated by the $826 million backlog in deffered maintenance. Because investment in the stock of existing infrastructure occurs regularly and at such a large scale, there will be many opportunities to incorporate green infrastructure efficiently and with signficant payback.

Best Practices

The EPA outlines the benefits of green infrastructure on a macro scale (wetland and stream remediation, forest expansion) and a micro scale (rain gardens, porous pavements, green roofs, infiltration planters, trees and tree boxes, and rainwater harvest for non-potable uses like toilet flushing and irrigation).9 The University of North Carolina has numerous green infrastructure stormwater best management practices in place. UNC began the policy design process in 2001 and green infrastructure implementation began in 2002. The impetus for introducing green infrastructure on UNC's campus came from a higher education bond. The University negotiated with the town of Chapel Hill to incorporate green infrastructure techniques in new development; new green infrastructure assists the town in complying with regulatory requirements. Green infrastructure designs and specifications are now included in all new building projects at UNC.10

Alternatives

The University could adopt specific sustainability policies to encourage the following:

1. Placement or rain barrels around the campus which would be a source of water for lawns and other purposes.

2. Further development of green roofs, both in new and in old buildings where feasible.

9 “Managing Wet Weather with Green Infrastructure.” US EPA. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/home.cfm?program_id=298#benefit10 AASHE. University of North Carolina Profile. http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_113.php

3. Installation of rain gardens at appropriate locations.

One potential policy is to adopt the Green Area Ratio (GAR), a green infrastructure sustainability metric. The GAR can be used to set green infrastructure coverage and performance goals for the campus. Attaining certain GAR scores can be mandated for all new development and redevelopment. The GAR concept and a congruent GAR calculator, which ranks the stormwater impact of various green infrastructure projects, were developed by a visiting professor to the University’s Center for Smart Growth, Professor Melissa Keeley. Professor Keeley’s GAR metric is currently being considered by the District of Columbia, Office of Planning for implementation throughout the District.11,12

Costs/Issues

There are hurdles to developing a plan for increasing green infrastructure into campus development and renewal. First, the backlog of maintenance on campus will deter sustainability projects as they typically come at a price premium. Second, persuading Facilities Management and the Facilities Council to take concrete action to mitigate stormwater will take time and could face administrative hurdles. Afterall, a shift towards sustainable development and renewal will require rethinking how facilities management addresses day-to-day problems – this will require the buy-in of all stakeholders.

Recommendations

The University intends to grow in both scope and physical size, but development as we know it has been redefined in recent years. From the University’s commitment to LEED certified and carbon neutral buildings13, to the principle of sustainability that has been echoed in both the University’s Master and Strategic plans14, the precedent has been set that development must be sustainable. Although it has received less attention thus far, stormwater management should be central to this University initiative as well, and more closely factored into future decision making. The wide use and installation of green infrastructure should become an important part of making the University more sustainable in the future.

11 Amber Lefstead. Analysis of Green Infrastructure Policy for Stormwater Mitigation in the District of Columbia. May 2009. 12 Keeley, M. 2004. Green Roofs Incentives: Tried and True Techniques from Europe. Proceedings from 2nd Annual Green Roofs for Healthy Cities Conference, www.greenroofs.ca/grhcc.13 University of Maryland. Draft Climate Action Plan. http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=CAP14 University of Maryland. The Strategic Plan for the University of Maryland. May 2008. http://www.sp07.umd.edu/PlanApril29.pdf

75

MEMO 18: Rain Barrels

TO: Ann Wylie FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Rain Barrels

Current Status on Campus

Rain barrels collect water running off from roofs and other structures. By collecting water during rain storms at peak flow times, the speed and magnitude of stormwater entering nearby water bodies can be controlled. This reduces the potential for downstream flooding and erosion. If the water is retained, it also reduces flows of chemicals, oil, fertilizers, and other forms of pollution that would have accumulated in the stormwater. The water can also be reused for lawns and landscaping, thus reducing University water demands and saving money. Residential irrigation typically makes up about 40 percent of residential water use, a figure that may also characterize the circumstance of the University.

Best Practices

Use of rain barrels is a common recommendation in plans for “low impact development” that increasingly seek to limit and redirect stormwater in many parts of North America. In Toronto, a city-wide Rain Barrel Program was begun in 1996 that allowed for residents to disconnect their downspouts from the stormwater runoff system. The City of Annapolis, MD has organized rain barrel design competitions with much success. Governor O’Malley has offered enthusiastic support for the wider use of rain barrels in the State of Maryland wherever they are needed and appropriate.

Alternatives

The University could adopt a policy to install rain barrels wherever feasible across the campus and to use them for irrigation of lawns and landscapes. Alternatively, a smaller demonstration program could be pursued in a more limited area that would explore the feasibility of rain barrels and the visual impacts they would have. The University might encourage the design of rain barrels to fit its own architectural circumstances – perhaps, like Annapolis, holding a student competition for this purpose.

Costs/Issues

Rain barrels can come in many shapes and forms, often designed to be compatible with the architectural and aesthetic circumstances in which they are being employed. The price of a rain barrel ranges from $15 the cheapest versions to $200 for custom tailored larger versions. More typically, they cost around $100 and hold around 55 gallons per barrel. One problem is that heavy rains may overwhelm the capacity of rain barrels. A one inch rainfall on a 20 foot by 25 foot roof can generate over 300 gallons of water which would require 4 or 5 barrels to fully hold.

Another important issue is the compatibility of rain barrels with the historical architectural designs around the University. It may require considerable imagination, and possibly create higher expenses, to find rain barrels that are compatible with the University’s aesthetic standards. The University architectural review committee might have to approve rain barrels and could raise objections to their wide use on campus. However, rain barrels could be designed to be mostly out of sight or otherwise visually unobtrusive.

Recommendation

The University should hold a student design contest to develop rain barrels compatible with University architectural standards and other aesthetic considerations. An experimental program of installing rain barrels should be undertaken in those areas of the campus that raise the greatest stormwater runoff concerns, that require large amounts of water for lawns and landscaping, and where aesthetic concerns may be less significant.

77

MEMO 19 – Construction Site Stormwater Management

TO: Ann WylieFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Construction Site Stormwater Management

Current Status on Campus

Facility renovation and especially new construction call for best management practices. Compost filter socks, compost blankets, and compost filter berms are three key evolving organic tools for stormwater control and filtration.

A compost filter sock is a compost-filled mesh tube placed perpendicular to sheet flow runoff1. The sock, oval to round in cross section, provides a three-dimensional filter that impedes sediment and other pollutants such as suspended solids, nutrients, and motor oil. Only filtered water flows through the sock2. Compost filter socks may replace traditional stormwater barriers like silt fences and straw bales. They can run along the perimeter of a construction site or at intervals along a steep or rocky slope, where traditional barriers often fail. Installation does not require soil disturbance.

Socks provide greater surface area contact with soil than do traditional barriers, reducing runoff quantity and improving quality. Unlike old-fashioned methods, vegetated filter socks can remain in place post-construction, providing a permanent organic anchor that even stimulates microbial activity3. The mesh sock itself is the only waste, thus reducing labor and disposal costs. Perhaps the filter sock’s biggest advantage over traditional practice is its filtering power. Compost retains water well, but large volumes of water also pass through. Silt dams often form around clogged fences or hay bale barriers4. The water passes through cleansed of pollutants: heavy metals, nitrogen, phosphorus, oil and grease, fuels, herbicides, and pesticides5.

A compost filter berm is a compost-built dike placed perpendicular to sheet flow runoff. The berm, trapezoidal in cross section, filters much like a compost sock. The compost blanket is shaped as it sounds, in a thin layer over soil in disturbed areas to control erosion. The blanket, properly applied, filters oncoming sheet flow, limits channelized flow, and grows vegetation on the surface. The compost blanket is versatile, functional on rocky, frozen, flat, and steep soil surfaces6. Compost filter socks, berms and blankets may be built from multiple materials: municipal yard trimmings, food residuals, separated municipal solid waste, biosolids, and manure7.

Before compost filter sock or berm installation, heavy vegetation should be cut down or removed and uneven surfaces leveled to ensure uniform soil contact8. Areas with very large amounts of concentrated runoff such as streams, ditches, or waterways are not suited for filter berms9. The same limitation applies for compost blankets. Also, blankets are not used on slopes greater than 2:1.

Best Practices

The compost filter berm and blanket offer similar advantages10. Sock filters and blankets are often used in synergy with one another for the same construction site11. A University of Georgia study found that properly applied compost blankets provided nearly 100 percent soil surface coverage—essential to effective erosion control—compared to 70 percent to 75 percent provided by traditional construction site methods like straw mats and mulches12.

Alternatives

As the University of Maryland expands its physical footprint, construction site runoff control will increase as a sustainability issue. Compost-based construction site best management practices could work better and cost the same or less than traditional techniques. University stormwater managers could investigate compost technology and consider a pilot project as new construction continues on campus. Compost filter socks, berms, and blankets at construction sites could become part of a vision for sustainable physical development as much as other stormwater control measures such as rain barrels, rain gardens, meadows, and other initiatives.

Costs/Issues

Costs for such new methods of construction site stormwater management vary widely depending on the exact parameters of the construction project. The Gold Leaf Group in Brookeville, Maryland provides the tools locally.13 Adopting new methods of construction site stormwater management will require that University staff investigate and become familiar with these methods.

Recommendations

The University should undertake a pilot project to examine the efficacy of new and possibly improved methods of controlling stormwater runoff at construction sites.

79

MEMO 20: Selling Water Quality Credits

TO: Ann WylieFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Selling Water Quality Credits

Current Status on Campus

The use of “cap and trade” methods of pollution control is spreading to many areas of environmental policy. The State of Maryland at present is developing a water quality credit trading program designed to improve water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and throughout the state. The program, which is set for full implementation later this year, allows wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs) to buy pollution credits from farms (and other entities) that have adopted pollution reduction mechanisms known as best management practices. As a large and influential generator of stormwater pollution, the University of Maryland could potentially generate and sell credits through this program.

The University of Maryland contributes to nitrogen pollution in the Chesapeake Bay through regular agricultural, landscaping and recreational (i.e., campus golf course) operations. Synthetic and organic fertilizer is applied on campus and at agricultural research locations throughout the state; some of the nitrogen in the fertilizer leaches into nearby streams and rivers after application. The degree to which the University’s fertilizer applications impact local water quality is difficult to quantify precisely, but general findings to date show University fertilizer use negatively impacts local water quality.

A 2007 report from Coastal Resources Inc. found that nitrogen indicators, including nitrate and TKN, were above EPA reference condition levels near the outfall to Campus Creek, which contains discharge from the University golf course. Nitrogen indicator levels at other outfall locations near campus were consistently lower than Campus Creek. In Fiscal Year 2007, the University applied almost 400,000 pounds of synthetic fertilizer (22% nitrogen) and 2 million pounds of organic fertilizer (1% nitrogen).15

The University could potentially reduce its nutrient loads to local water bodies and then sell some part of this reduction to sewage treatment plants and other point sources within Maryland (which would incur large costs if they had to make the reductions themselves) as a nutrient credit. By means of this transaction, the other sources would provide the necessary financing for University nutrient reductions that the University might not otherwise be able to afford.

Such “cap and trade” and other trading programs have become an important part of environmental policy in recent years and have played a large role in recent global climate change policy debates. It is recognized that they may significantly enhance the efficiency of environmental policies and thus reduce the total economic burdens of complying with

15 University of Maryland. Center for Integrative Environmental Research. Carbon Footprint of the University of Maryland, College Park: An Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions (2002-2007). http://www.cier.umd.edu/campus_climate_action.htm

environmental requirements. With its faculty and other greater sources of expertise in such matters, the University of Maryland is well position to play an important role in the development and implementation of such concepts in the cleanup of the Anacostia River and Chesapeake Bay. University sales of water pollution credits could provide pathbreaking examples that would set the stage for wider use of such methods in the State of Maryland.

Best Practices

The State of Maryland’s new water quality credit trading program is broken up into two phases with phase one involving the development of rules for point-to-point source trades and phase two involving point-to-non-point source trades. Phase one is complete and point-to-point source trades are acceptable while point-to-non-point trades will not be considered valid until rulemaking is complete later this year.

The central idea behind the program is that farmers and other heavy fertilizer users can be integrated into nutrient pollution control in the Chesapeake Bay in a legal and economically efficient manner. Although phase one trades are now accepted, there has not been a single trade in the State of Maryland to date.16 This is partly the result of the program being new and in the formulation stage, but the biggest hurdle has been regulatory requirements for WWTPs. WWTPs must install expensive nutrient filtering technology before they can participate in the program. Because Maryland WWTPs are not presently under regulatory pressure to further control nutrients, most WWTPs are holding off on installing the technology. However, as the state population grows in coming years, WWTPs will not be able to maintain acceptable pollution levels without improving technology and purchasing pollution credits through the trading program.

The University of Maryland may have opportunities to participate in the water quality trading program once point-to-non-point credit trading is approved and as WWTPs become more interested in purchasing credits. The University would likely only sell credits as the program is designed to have WWTPs be the primary purchasers of credits. Credits could be generated in a number of ways, but how exactly is contingent upon the details of the final program and other factors such as the cost of credit verification.

More resources on Maryland’s water quality trading program can be found at http://www.mde.state.md.us/. An additional resource is Dr. Douglas Parker, located in the department of agricultural and resource economics: dougp@umd.edu.

Alternatives

One way to generate credits could be to implement best management practices (BMPs) related to campus landscaping or development. On the landscaping front, facilities management could apply less fertilizer or fertilizer with less nitrogen and buffers could be installed along streams to reduce runoff. For campus development, the trading program may allow credits to be generated through low impact development. Because the program is targeted at farms, there may be

16 Personal Communication. Douglas Parker. March 24, 2009.

81

programmatic challenges to generating credits through non-agriculture oriented landscaping and development.

The second method for generating credits could be through the golf course or other recreational sites. In many respects, this falls into the category of landscaping, but because of the quantity and type of landscaping that takes place on the golf course, it could offer more opportunities to generate credits. For example, the golf course could shift when and where it applies fertilizer. In turn, this could qualify as credit generation and the University could sell a credit to a local WWTP such as the Blue Plains water treatment plant. The University golf course currently executes a number of best management practices – to generate credits the golf course management would need to go above and beyond their current efforts.

The final and most likely method for credit generation is through University of Maryland agricultural experimental station farms. This is the best option because there are several BMPs related to livestock management, crop production and other aspects of general agriculture; there will be a number of ways to cost-effectively generate credits. Also, university researchers and farm managers could adopt best management practices throughout state research farms to generate credits. The major hurdle here is that researchers may not be able to adjust experimental designs in a manner that makes credits valid.

Costs/Issues

Selling water quality credits would not involve direct costs to the University; rather, the sales would bring in revenues to fund University stormwater and landscaping projects that might not otherwise be financially feasible. The main cost would be the investment of time and effort of university personnel in helping to pioneer a novel pollution control instrument in Maryland. An educational process would have to be developed for University staff. Inevitably, numerous hurdles would have to be surmounted, some of them no doubt unanticipated. While this might be a cost from the viewpoint of the University, it might be a benefit from the viewpoint of the State as a whole in providing examples of success that could then be more widely followed by farmers and other parties statewide.

Recommendation

The University of Maryland may be eligible to sell water quality credits once the second phase of the water quality credit program goes into effect. Selling credits is also contingent upon there being demand from WWTPs for credits and the language of the final program rule. At this point, next steps for the University should be to make a public statement that it is looking to generate and sell water quality credits. Additionally, University environmental experts knowledgeable in water quality credit trading should coordinate with staff in Facilities Management to explore how this might actually occur. Whether or not the University will be able to directly generate and sell credits through the program remains to be seen, but the University nutrient and landscape managers as well as agricultural extension agents should look to get the University involved through either direct trading or outreach to area farmers.

82

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR LAWNS AND

LANDSCAPING

The University of Maryland has made a priority of preserving and enhancing its campus grounds in a sustainable way as evidenced by several recent awards and designations. The University Golf Course has been certified as an Audubon International Wildlife Sanctuary. The golf course contains a diverse array of species that the university has committed to protecting. The Grounds Unit of the Department of Building and Landscape Services ensures proper placement of plants to avoid problems with insects and disease and incorporates native species into plantings. They occasionally use pesticides, but ensure that they are used sparingly or substituted for organic products.

In March 2009, the campus was designed as an arboretum and botanical garden by the American Public Gardens Association and is the first campus to be recognized as a "Tree Campus USA" by the ArborDay Foundation. The university conducted a five-year inventory of all the trees on campus to facilitate sustainable landscape management. Despite these positive efforts, the university has further opportunities to follow the steps of other peer institutions in improving the sustainability of its lawn and landscaping services.

MEMO 21: Low-Mow Meadows

TO: Ann WylieFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Low-Mow Meadows

Current Status on Campus

The Department of Building and Landscape Services and the University Golf Course have made efforts to improve their sustainability practices. The golf course, home to a variety of plants and animals, has made improvements in the placement of plants to prevent insect problems and other harm to the health of the plants. The University has have incorporated native plants into various areas of campus, attempting to avoid pesticide use and use organic products when available.1 Another possibility would be to change the management practices in terms of the maintenance of University lawn areas, including the extent to which these areas are mowed.

Best Practices

Low-mow meadow creation has been integrated successfully into the sustainability plans of several campuses across the country. Cape Cod Community College, a small two-year school in Massachusetts, has gained regional and national recognition for its experience with low-mow landscape design. It cites the following benefits of the program:

prevention of the dumping of thousands of pounds of fertilizer into the Cape's aquifer savings of thousands of gallons of irrigation water elimination of 80% of lawn mowing significant decrease in fossil fuel use and air pollution encouragement of native plants, wildlife, and beneficial insects.

According to CCCC's Assistant Vice President for Facilities, John Lebica, the low-mow project largely has been a success, but took careful planning and implementation.2 It began with an experiment small plot of the college's land that was somewhat set aside from the most traveled areas of the campus. For one year the campus stopped mowing the area and let it grow, resulting in many native species coming back. The University administration then decided to let the project continue further.

University planners consulted with state wildlife authorities to choose the best seeds for planting and ceased mowing. They subsequently encountered problems with faculty and students when the next semester began. The initial plan had been to only mow the area once a year around October 15th. This meant that the grass was quite high in September when school began. The solution was to mow the area a little earlier than suggested in late August. This helped to quell much of the concern from the university community.

1 Office of Campus Sustainability. (2007). Campus operations: landscaping. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from Office of Sustainability website: http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=sustain_co_landscaping.2 Lebica, John. Personal Interview. 5 March 2009.

85

Over the course of the year as the grass grew back people got used to seeing it. University sustainability planners also encountered some concern from the grounds crews who worried that decreased mowing would endanger their jobs. In reality, the lower need to mow freed manpower for projects he had been delayed.

Low-mow meadows also have been implemented at larger public peer institutions of the University of Maryland. In the spring of 2007, Virginia Tech converted 13 areas of campus totaling 35 acres into low maintenance native grass meadows and wildflowers. Virginia Tech cites the following gains:

Impacts to greenhouse gas emissions: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has calculated that standard maintenance of 1000 acres of lawn will lead to the emission of 18 tons of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) per year. Virginia Tech estimated that reducing mowing of 38 acres in the first phase of the project to once per 2-3 years should reduce on-campus VOC emissions by over 1,300 lbs./year. Prairie restoration can also increase carbon sequestration, but this effect is difficult to measure.

The machines that previously were used to maintain the area will have a longer life cycle since they will need to cover less area.

Manpower can be diverted to currently understaffed projects on campus. Reduced mowing will result in other resource savings. These resources can be reallocated

to other areas of campus where needed. Educational opportunities will be provided through campus collaboration with departments

to create the meadow and signs posted around campus.

There have been some concerns raised. It is necessary to destroy healthy green grass with pesticides and to be conscious of wind direction because the wind can blow unwanted species such as dandelions and thistles over to the meadow. To combat pests, it is necessary to chemically treat the site. Additionally, new lawnmowers may be required.

Alternatives

A site could be selected for experimental purposes in a low traffic area of the University. Wind direction and potential for stormwater management should be important factors in site selection. Native plant species in the Maryland Coastal Plain could be chosen to create the desired aesthetic. The following timeline was used by Virginia Tech and could be a basis for a similar project at the University of Maryland:

End of March: First mowing of actively growing existing turf April 1: Existing turf sprayed with herbicide April 15: Remaining turf that re-grows closely mowed May 1- 8: Any remaining turf sprayed with herbicide May 15: Scalp mow dead turf and begin seeding June 1: Complete seeding Year one and two: mowing to maintain 8” height as needed during establishment

86

Costs/Issues

In terms of costs, officials from both schools indicated that the monetary costs of meadow conversion are minimal and limited basically to the cost of the seeds. The Virginia Tech project cost has an estimated cost of $19,750 which includes seed mixes, herbicide, a specialized drill seeder for native grasses, and signs. Costs for a University of Maryland project should be in the range of a a few thousand dollars depending on the number of acres. A more ambitious project would be somewhat more expensive.

Members of the campus community might be concerned about damaging the university's aesthetic appeal from having large green lawns and about the potential for ticks and other pests to thrive in meadows. Grounds crews may be worried about their jobs and create barriers for the project. It would be necessary to conduct an educational campaign throughout the University campus to explain the sustainability purposes of meadow creation. When the sustainability purposes are more widely appreciated, the cultural response to meadows in place of lawns could become much more favorable.

Recommendation

The University of Maryland should consider a trial program for creating low-mow areas of campus in order to save university resources and minimize the university's environmental impact.

87

MEMO 22: Low-Maintenance Grasses

TO: Ann WylieFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Low-Maintenance Grass

Current Status on Campus

The University of Maryland contains about 70% paved area and 30% green areas and semi-paved areas. Most unpaved area consists of lawns cared for by the Department of Building and Landscape Services and the University Golf Course. The university's lawns are of the species, Tall Fescue or Festuca arundinacea. This variety of grass is adaptable to cool and hot seasons as well as frequent foot traffic. Other characteristics include good shade tolerance, average required maintenance, reasonable drought tolerance, and a mowing height of 3 inches. During mowing season, an average of 16-24 men mow the grass for 7 zones. The lawns are mowed between once a week and twice a month during the months of April through June.

The University Golf Course provides an excellent example of the potential for low maintenance grasses on the broader campus. It has introduced several types of grass to the course that require less water than previous species, particularly Bermuda and Zoysia grasses. Native grasses have been allowed to grow back in some areas to create space for wildlife. Native grasses also require very little maintenance. These grasses do not stay green all year, but the savings have made up for the browner grass. The golf course lowered its water bill by 38%, a savings of $30,000 per year.3

Best Practices

Several other universities have saved resources and promoted sustainability on their campuses through converting to low maintenance lawns. Western Illinois University converted a part of its main campus to authentic short-grass prairie and is evaluating another 2 acre project. Through a program called We-Care, volunteers assisted with developing these areas.4

The Dakota County Technical College developed 10 acres of prairie grass and wildflowers and plans to double this to 20 acres. The college lowered its mowing, emissions, and fuel use while creating habitat for flora and fauna.5

3 Office of Campus Sustainability. (2007) Campus operations: water conservation. Retrieved April 27, 2009 from Office of Sustainability website: http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/index.php?p=sustain_co_watercon.4 Western Illinois University 2007 campus sustainability leadership award application. Retrieved April 27, 2009 from Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education website: http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/w_illinois2007.php.5 Dakota County Technical College 2008 Sustainability Leadership Award Application. Retrieved April 27, 2009 from Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education website: http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat1_98.php.

Alternatives

The University of Maryland could convert more areas of its campus to low maintenance grasses using similar types of grasses and conversion techniques as the University Golf Course. The program should not be a large financial burden and the subsequent savings would quickly pay for the initial investment. Funding may also be available through the state or through the stimulus package.

Because of manpower shortages, the university could consider bringing interested academic and administrative departments together on the project. Volunteers could lend their expertise in areas such as landscape architecture and plant science, or merely their hands in participating in the actual conversion.

Costs/Issues

The main hurdle with planting new low maintenance grasses is overcoming preconceptions of the campus community regarding how lawns should look. The University might have to conduct awareness campaigns to show its occupants and the broader public how making a small sacrifice in traditional lawn aesthetics can achieve large benefits in future lawn sustainability.

Recommendation

The University of Maryland should undertake an experimental program to convert a small lawn area of the main campus to low maintenance grasses. Through this program, staff could get a sense of the options available and the likely campus responses – the best species to plant, the resource savings possible, and the opinions of the campus community with respect to such an aesthetic change.

89

MEMO 23: Low-Carbon Landscaping

TO: Ann WylieFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Low-Carbon Landscaping

Current Status on Campus

The University’s Draft Climate Action Plan, released in April for comment, did not focus explicity on reducing greenhouse gas emissions from campus landscaping. However, with the University using 11,000 gallons of gasoline in fiscal year 2008 to run lawnmowers, Gators and leaf-blowers, there are opportunities to reduce carbon emissions from campus landscaping operations.6 Emissions from campus landscaping gasoline use, not including the University golf course, totaled 98,000 tons of CO2 in FY 2008; application of synthetic fertilizer on campus also increased the University’s carbon footprint. Emissions from these sources are small, but achieving many small successes will be necessary if the University hopes to succeed in reaching carbon neutrality.

Best Practices and Alternatives

Best practices for low-carbon landscaping from other universities and the larger landscaping industry are available. In general, the most effective approach to reducing GHG emissions is to substitute fuel-powered equipment with man-power and tools. Leaf-blowers and lawn-mowers are notoriously inefficient with as much as 30 percent of the exhaust coming from this equipment being unburned fuel.7 Depending on the job at hand, for example, simple rakes and brooms might be just as effective as leaf blowers, though the job could take more time.

Another option is to replace old, inefficient equipment with newer, cleaner equipment. There are a number of high-quality, small Gator-like utility vehicles on the market that run on an electric charge.8 Replacing gators and other gas consuming equipment as it becomes outdated with alternatively powered equipment will reduce GHG emissions and improve local air quality.

Finally, the simplest approach to reducing emissions may be to run the equipment less frequently. Currently, lawns are mowed anywhere from weekly to monthly depending on the location and recent weather. If half of the gas used by the Department of Building and Landscape Services is to run mowers, then mowing the grass one-fourth less often (i.e., 3 times per month vs. 4 times per month) would save close to 1,400 gallons of gas.

Issues/Costs 6 Ramy Serour. Personal Communication. May 5, 2009. 7 Eileen Stark. Natural Home. “Garden in Small Footprints: 10 Tips for a low-carbon garden.” http://www.naturalhomemagazine.com/Garden-Guides/10-Tips-for-a-Low-Carbon-Garden.aspx8 Cruisecar.com. http://www.cruisecarinc.com/

The University is expected to maintain certain aesthetic appearances that a more carbon neutral set of practices may challenge. For example, mowing less often around the “big M” traffic circle would be noticeable to visitors and could detract from the symbol. Another concern is labor – mowing and maintaining the landscape less frequently will reduce demand for laborers even while increasing the amount of other work done by hand (as opposed to gas-powered equipment) would require more laborers. The University does not want to displace employees solely to reduce GHG emissions. There is the potential that a combination of the two policies (increasing man-power, limiting frequency of jobs) could require the same amount of man-hours. The Department of Building and Landscape Services would obviously use discretion in executing best practices and would need to be practical in achieving a carbon reduction.

Recommendation

Landscaping on campus consumes significant amounts of fuel to operate machines and maintain campus aesthetics. The fuel consumption along with heavy fertilizer use result in a small, but not insignificant, amount of carbon emissions. There are a number of best practices available including using equipment less frequently, replacing inefficient equipment, and substituting gas-powered equipment with man-power. Next steps for the Department of Building and Landscape Services are to explore options for procuring energy efficient equipment. Additionally, the Department should evaluate whether any current gas-powered operations are unnecessary or could be easily replaced with a man-powered operation.

91

MEMO 24: Reclaimed Water

TO: Ann Wylie, Linda Clement FROM: Environmental Policy WorkshopRE: Reclaimed Water

Current Status on Campus

The University of Maryland College Park campus uses approximately a half billion gallons of water annually.9 A reclamation system based on reuse of water in dorms and other parts of the campus would reduce the community’s risks during droughts and other water shortages, help to defer future expansion of drinking water treatment plant and water supply facilities (thereby saving potentially millions of dollars), help to protect water quality (by further reducing the release of nitrogen and phosphorus in treated wastewater to the local watershed), and reduce the amount of energy required to treat and deliver water to meet the University’s needs (thereby reducing greenhouse gas emissions). Depending on the level of treatment, reclaimed water could be used for potable or nonpotable purposes. A main likely use at the University of Maryland would be watering of lawns and landscapes.

Best Practices

Existing Buildings: The University of North Carolina and the local water/sewage company recently completed construction of a reclaimed water system serving facilities on the University’s main campus.10 Reclaimed water, which has received advanced treatment at the local wastewater treatment plant, is being used in two UNC cooling towers. The new system will enable the University to reduce its use of imported water at cooling towers by about 660,000 gallons per day in Fiscal Year 2010 (July 1, 2009 – June 30, 2010). The University plans to extend the reclaimed water system to serve additional cooling tower, toilet flushing, and irrigation needs on the main campus.

New Buildings: The Oregon Health & Science University’s Center for Health and Healing recycles gray water from showers and sinks and reclaims its “black water” (that’s the refuse from flushing toilets). The system includes a membrane bioreactor in the basement that is basically a small-scale sewage plant. The building uses 60 percent less water than most buildings its size, and its outflow to the city sewage pipes is virtually nonexistent. The OHSU building incorporates both rainwater and groundwater collection systems on the roof and underground, which get mixed with the building’s own gray water and sent to the basement treatment system. Reclaimed water is stored in cisterns before being pumped upstairs or sent outside to irrigate the building’s grounds. Although the system was expensive to install, OHSU estimates that it is now

9 University of Maryland College Park, Sustainability Report. http://www.sustainability.umd.edu/Campus_Sustainability_Report_2008.pdf10 Retrieved May 10, 2009 from Sustainability at UNC. http://sustainability.unc.edu/Water/ReclamationandReuse/tabid/78/Default.aspx

saving $70,000 to $90,000 a year. 11 OHSU estimates that it will take about 10 years to recoup the costs of their system.

Alternatives

A lower cost alternative, short term, would be to install water reclamation systems in new buildings only. Although not inexpensive, it would decrease the cost and allow it to be included in construction cost.

A preferable, but higher cost option is to implement a university wide water reclamation system modeled after UNC’s for use in the HVAC system and expanding the system to include irrigation and toilet flushing.

Costs/Issues Costs for a water reclamation system are substantial. The University of North Carolina invested over $10 million in building the reclaimed water system over a period of 5 years.

Recommendations

The University of Maryland should explore the feasibility of installing a water reclamation system and possibly apply for grants from the State of Maryland, EPA and other organizations to assist with the funding. UMD should contract with a water engineer to determine how this water reclamation system could be best constructed to ensure its efficiency and compliance with state and national graywater usage regulations. Ideally, the project might pay for its costs in 5-10 years, establish UMD as a leader in water conservation and serve as an educational tool to the local community about the benefits of water reuse.

Stimulus Bill Implications: The American Reinvestment and Recovery Plan included money to fund water reclamation/reuse projects and grants may be available through the State of Maryland and the Chesapeake Bay Commission since a water reclamation system would be beneficial to the sustainability plans of both these organizations.

11 Retrieved May 10, 2009 from Interface Engineering. http://www.ieice.com/pdfs/case-studies/sustainable-world.pdf

93

MEMO 25 – Biochar

TO: Ann Wylie FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Biochar

Current Status on Campus

The University of Maryland resides in the Anacostia River and Chesapeake Bay watersheds. Nitrogen, phosphorus, and sedimentation have degraded the water quality in both watersheds for decades. As a buyer and user of nitrogen-based fertilizer on a mass scale, UMD can affect Bay quality through its fertilizer practices.

Biochar, an ancient but unexploited agricultural technology, offers a potentially carbon-negative, high-potency fertilizer alternative to traditional materials. Biochar is a highly porous charcoal derived from organic raw materials such as woodchips, corn husks, peanut shells, and chicken manure14. Biochar requires less frequent application than traditional fertilizer. Biochar sequesters nutrients and eases their access to plants. However much the nitrogen concentration of the feedstock, the nutrient will likely release more slowly from the substrate as runoff than it would from conventional fertilizer15. Biochar increases nitrogen use efficiency by crops16.

Best Practices

Rich, black soil known was “Indian dark earth” patches the Amazon basin. Indian farmers once mixed charcoal and fish bones to generate soil nearly nine times as fertile as regular earth. Recent academic research indicates that modern farmers can use a similar recipe for this biochar concoction to produce similar results, reducing the need for toxic, polluting chemical fertilizers. Delaware State University soil scientist Mingxin Guo recently found that biochar-enhanced wheat yielded 45 percent more biomass; biochar nourishes the soil’s microbial life17.

Biochar could also function as a formidable carbon offset. It can sequester carbon for thousands of years. According to Robert Brown, director of Iowa State University’s Center for Sustainable Environmental Technologies, converting half the crop residues from one square mile of farmland to biochar would sequester enough carbon to offset the emissions from 330 automobiles.

Johannes Lehmann, Cornell University biochar expert, highlights more benefits. He calculates that by century’s end, biochar production could sequester 9.5 million metric tons of carbon a year, enough to offset all today’s global fossil fuel emissions. The fertilizer would accomplish this without taking land away from food production18.

Daniel Kammen, Nobel Prize-winning professor of energy at the University California, Berkeley, recently selected BEST Energies Australian, identified biochar technology as one of the top five “most visionary world-saving innovations out there” due to its potential carbon-negative effects19.

Alternatives

Research into the detailed pros and cons of biochar versus traditional fertilizer is ongoing. Precise cost comparisons are difficult to make at present given biochar’s infant industry status.

The Carbon Char Group, a private biochar vendor, has grown a successful trial plot at Virginia Tech. In 2005, researchers applied the soil amendment at 7 pounds per acre, and achieved a 20 percent increase in corn yield. Below ground, they recorded: a 17 percent increase in bacteria; a 43 percent increase in fungi; a 66 percent increase in flagellates; a 206 percent increase in amoebae; and a 520 percent increase in mycorrhizal colonization20.

Costs/Issues

The University and other potential biochar experimenters would have difficulty finding the fertilizer on the market. Once located, however, biochar vendors often give away samples of the product for publicity.

Continued research will test biochar’s claim as a carbon sink. The energy intensity of biochar production, transportation, and burial might make the technology carbon-neutral21.

Recommendations

Given its potential as a carbon sink and effective organic fertilizer, biochar deserves further study by UMD, potentially via an experimental plot at one of its farms. In particular, the prospect of using chicken waste—given the surplus of this Bay pollutant on the Eastern Shore—is inviting as a raw material for biochar. The University might work with Virginia Tech to compare notes before beginning such a pilot project.

95

96

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR TRANSPORTATION

In FY 2007, transportation accounted for 34 percent of campus greenhouse gas emissions.1 These emissions came from three major sources2: (1) automobile commuters (54%), (2) air travel (40%), and (3) the campus fleet (6%) which includes facilities management vehicles, shuttle buses, and other campus-related vehicles. Influencing these major contributors can play a large role in reducing the campus’ carbon footprint.

Currently, there are 23,016 parking spaces on campus and 23,143 parking permits issued.3 The Department of Transportation Services has already enacted many programs to help reduce the number of single-occupant automobile commuters. Bundle Packs allow commuters to purchase a pack of 10 day passes for $25 instead of having to purchase a semester-long pass. The Smart Park Carpool Program gives discounts to carpoolers but registered only 12 two-person carpools in Spring 2008.4 There is also a “Green Permit” program that offers a 20% discount for all commuter vehicles that meet EPA’s Green Vehicle Standard.

There are also programs to promote alternative means of transportation to campus. The University runs 58 UM-Shuttle vehicles that serve 24 routes with ridership reaching 2.35 million rides for the fiscal year 2008.5 The Metrochek program allows employees to purchase Metro passes with pre-tax income, and a Campus Bicycle Plan is almost complete that recommends changes on campus over the next three years to create paths, signage, and facilities that could increase the current level of cycling on campus from 5% to 9%.6

The following memos offer several options for how the University can further reduce transportation-related carbon emissions and otherwise improve the sustainability of its transportation system.

1 Carbon Footprint of the University of Maryland, College Park: An Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pg. 52 Carbon Footprint of the University of Maryland, College Park: An Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pg. 253 Department of Transportation Services Annual Report Fiscal Year 2008, pg. 54 Department of Transportation Services Annual Report Fiscal Year 2008, pg. 105 Campus Sustainability Report 2008, pg. 166 University of Maryland Campus Bicycle Plan, pg. 4

MEMO 26: Student Transit Fare Discounts

TO: Linda Clement FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Discounted Student Transit Fares

Current Status on Campus

Automobile commutes to the campus account for nearly 20% of the University’s carbon emissions.7 Various programs on campus have begun to address this issue through economic incentives for carpooling, promoting parking less often, and increasing UM shuttle service. The strategic plan promises that the University “will vigorously support new links to the campus that increase accessibility and decrease congestion.” It also calls for a better connection to the external public transportation systems in the area by suggesting an appropriate alignment for the proposed Purple Line “through campus, with connections to University College, East Campus, the College Park Metro, and M Square.” The strategic plan also states that the University “will discourage automobile traffic to and from the campus.”

The Climate Action Plan calls for the initiation of two or more tangible actions to reduce greenhouse gases while the more comprehensive plan is being developed. According to the report, one of these is to “encourage use of and provide access to public transportation for all faculty, staff, students and visitors at our institution.” The mechanisms for action promoted in the climate plan focus on educating staff and students about the benefits of local transportation, accessible housing options, and the Metrochek program that allows faculty and staff to purchase metrocards with pre-tax funds from their paychecks. The Plan also recommends “increased use of Shuttle-UM for commuting.” To do so, the plan recommends efforts to “increase the number and frequency of commuter routes” and to “increase the number of Park and Ride routes and frequency/timing of service”

Best Practices

A report titled “Unlimited Access” analyzed the use of fare-free transit services at 35 universities across the country including George Mason University, the University of Illinois, and Ohio State University.8 The system they describe involves the university paying a lump sum to the local transportation agency based on expected student ridership. The average cost of the program across the universities has been about $30 per student per year. Students, then, are able to ride for free at any time to anywhere just by showing their valid student ID. Of the 35 universities analyzed for the study, increases in student transit ridership increased between 71% and 200% during the first year. Growth in subsequent years ranged from 2% to 10%. The possible benefits to this program go beyond solely lowering carbon emissions. Offering free transportation to students is also a recruitment benefit since students could conceivably have no transportation costs, therefore making it more affordable to attend college. It could also expand the affordable housing supply to any transit-accessible area in the community.

7 Carbon Footprint of the University of Maryland, College Park: An Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pg. 58 http://www.its.ucla.edu/research/UA/UA.pdf

Ideally, the University could forge an agreement with Washington Metropolitan Transit Authority (WMATA) that allowed students to ride the entire system at a free or discounted rate. The University has failed, however, in past negotiations with WMATA to develop a program like this because the transit agency has traditionally been underfunded and unwilling to participate on terms acceptable to the University. However, there have been no recent attempts to reconsider the possibilities of a special arrangement for UMD student riders.

Alternatives

The University could renew efforts to negotiate an agreement with WMATA that would provide free or discounted rides for students. One alternative would be to seek to negotiate a UMD student fare structure comparable to senior citizens (65 and older) at present. Under existing WMATA policy, senior citizens are now able to ride on Metrorail for half the regular fare and for 60 cents on regular Metrobus routes.

Another alternative would be to limit any such discounted fare structure to bus routes that directly served the University (or conceivably also student trips originating or ending at the College Park Metro station). This might be more attractive to WMATA. If this were to happen, the university might be able to eliminate some of its own shuttle bus routes that are redundant with those of the transit agency. The shuttle fleet would then focus on park and rides and certain, popular routes like metro shuttle and 113 University Towers.

For the general ridership, WMATA also at present has 7-day short trip passes for unlimited travel on its rail and bus system during off-peak hours and travel up to $2.65 during peak hours. If a ride costs more than the $2.65, then the rider must pay the extra exit fare out of pocket. These passes cost $26.40 so if the University were to purchase passes for all seventeen weeks in a semester, it would cost $448.80 per student. However, it might be possible to negotiate a significant student discount from WMATA. Students might also share in the cost – paying say $150 for a short trip pass that covered the entire semester – with the University covering the remaining amounts necessary to enlist WMATA participation.

Weekly passes that are limited to Metrobuses are less expensive, now costing $11 per week. If the University were to purchase bus only passes for all students for all seventeen weeks in a semester, it would cost $187 per student. However, again, it might be possible to negotiate a reduced cost for students. If the University offered an additional subsidy from its own funds, students might, for example, pay $50 per semester for a pass entitling them to free Metrobus use.

If it made the program even more palatable and affordable, students might be given a choice between either purchasing a parking permit or receiving the $50 bus pass, but they would not be able to obtain both.

If the University is unable to reach an agreement with WMATA, the University could seek to negotiate an agreement with Prince George’s “The Bus.” The Prince Georges system would benefit by having a new steady stream of income while most likely only having to marginally increase service since their buses do not run at full capacity. This program would be less expensive for the University, but it would not provide as much service to students. Prince

100

George’s “The Bus” rides cost $1, and the University perhaps could negotiate to give students a discount of at least $.50 per ride to make this partnership worthwhile.

Costs/Issues

WMATA is underfunded and, absent financial benefit to itself, has no real incentive to give University of Maryland students free or discounted fares. The financial benefits to WMATA would depend on the patterns of student use and whether the addition of Maryland students to total passenger demand could be met by existing buses or would require any additional buses.

If the University subsidizes student ridership on Metro, it might obtain some of the funds by achieving cost savings due to reduced service on the Shuttle UM fleet (which has a budget of $4.7 million). Some of the current Shuttle UM routes are redundant with Metrobus routes. However, the Department of Transportation Services would have a difficult time trying to rationalize cutting back their routes when they are looking at expanding the scope of their fleet.

Recommendation

The University should reenter negotiations with WMATA seeking to negotiate an arrangement that would make Metro rail and bus service available to UMD students for the same fares that WMATA at present offers to senior citizens. Alternatively, the University should seek to negotiate a reduced student price for Metrobus weekly passes (existing passes that cost $11 per week and are available to anyone and allow unlimited free use during the week -- but on buses only). The University should contribute some of its own funds to make such weekly bus passes available to students for a full semester at a low cost – perhaps $50 per semester per student. The University should work with other institutions of higher education in the Washington area to coordinate an approach to WMATA for new student pricing policies.

101

MEMO 27: Student Parking

TO: Linda ClementFROM: 2009 Environmental Policy WorkshopRE: Student Parking

Current Status on Campus

Given the large number of automobile commuters to campus, they are an important group to influence in order to reduce the University’s carbon footprint. Surveys are currently being undertaken to determine who parking permit holders are, where they come from, and what kind of cars they drive. This information should allow the university to more accurately account for the carbon emissions produced by commuters with parking permits.

The Department of Transportation Services provided 23,143 parking permits to faculty, staff, and students in FY 2008. The revenue from the sale of these permits amounted to just over $8 million and approximately equaled the salaries, wages, and general operating costs for the department’s parking division.9 This reinforces the Department’s notion that they are not striving for a large profit but are solely seeking to cover costs for the service they provide. This creates a troublesome situation, however, because the Department has conflicting goals of catering towards single-occupancy vehicles for this revenue while also providing meaningful, less profitable transportation alternatives such as the Shuttle UM.

The Strategic Plan indicates that the University aims to “discourage automobile traffic to and from the campus.” However, there are currently few incentives for students to take alternative means of transportation to campus. Parking permits are extremely affordable. For Spring ’09, parking passes for commuter students were $107 and parking permits for campus resident students were $206. A student who comes to class 4 days a week by car, then, is only paying about $1.50 per campus visit. This compares with fees charged to visitors in University parking garages of up to $12 per day.

If that same student took a bus on the Prince George’s system, it would cost $2. If they used a metro bus, it would be $2.70, and if they used the metro train, it could cost up to $5.00 or more. These costs do not even include the added time it likely takes when using public transportation. Thus, the University is actually encouraging single-occupant commuting to campus through its parking policies. (The only exception to this is Shuttle-UM. In the Spring of 2008 alone over 1,000,000 trips were taken by students on these shuttles.10 This number is on the rise, but is still not comparable to the number of trips by single-occupant vehicles to campus.)

Best Practices

Washington State University prices parking permits at different levels for different zones on campus based on the desirability of each zone. The permit price is based on three factors: (1)

9 Department of Transportation Services Annual Report Fiscal Year 2008, pg. 1710 Department of Transportation Services Annual Report Fiscal Year 2008, pg. 16

proximity of the zone to major destinations on campus, (2) quality of the parking facility, and (3) demand for the zone.11 Those who purchase parking for the most expensive zones are also allowed to park in the cheaper zones.

The University of Wisconsin, Madison offers “PBC Flex” parking to its faculty and staff as a replacement for long-term permits.12 Users of this program obtain a flex pass to hang on their rear view mirror and register their car with a pay-by-cell company. Each time they park on campus, they call an automated system and input how many hours they will be parking for and the amount is automatically deducted from their account. While per-semester or per-year passes such as offered at the University of Maryland do not offer any incentives to limit car trips to campus, Wisconsin’s flex permits create a marginal cost of parking that provides a disincentive to use of scarce parking space. The parking cost for the flex pass holders falls in between that of purchasing a semester-long permit and paying the normal visitor parking fees.

Georgia Southern takes a non-economic stance in limiting parking. They have utilized a “Non-commuter Zone” in their parking permitting process since 2005 that prohibits students living nearby campus from purchasing a permit.13 About 3,000 of the 18,000 students at the University live within the zone and must ride the shuttle service, walk, or bicycle to campus. Parking, then, is limited to the students who live further away and are limited in their transportation options.

Starting in the Fall of 2009, Bowdoin College in Maine will not allow Freshman to park on campus.14 The campus, like the University of Maryland, is connected by many other forms of transportation so the University finds it unnecessary to provide parking for these students.

Alternatives

The University could implement a parking permit policy that gives priority to longer distance commuters. This would reduce unnecessary car trips from students living nearby who could instead utilize the UM-Shuttle, local transportation, bicycles, or even walk to campus. As the University moves forward with plans to better measure the carbon footprint of the commuters by understanding where permit holders are traveling from, it will also enable the University to determine boundaries for the establishment of a “Non-commuter Zone.” These boundaries should correlate to the UMD bus shuttle system so that a place like University Towers, for example, would be included on the list of places where students not allowed to purchase permits.

One study suggested a pilot program varying campus parking prices by time and location for a sample of a few hundred students, faculty, and staff.15 This program would make it more expensive to park in more desirable lots and keep correspondingly lower rates for less convenient parking. This might induce some students to use buses or other alternative forms of transportation. Even if students continued to commute, they could be redirected to more remote parking locations, reducing campus congestion. The University could provide improved parking 11 http://www.parking.wsu.edu/utils/File.aspx?fileid=340812 http://www2.fpm.wisc.edu/trans/alt_flex_faq.asp13 http://services.georgiasouthern.edu/park/noncomm.php14 http://www.bowdoin.edu/news/archives/1bowdoincampus/005338.shtml15 The Politics and Economics of Parking on Campus, Donald Shoup, http://shoup.bol.ucla.edu/PoliticsAndEconomicsOfCampusParking.pdf

103

for students in satellite lots off campus that would be served by the UMD Shuttle fleet.

Costs/Issues

One problem with varying zones and prices for campus parking is that there will still be inexpensive parking at the less convenient locations. To that end, it might not actually limit commuting trips. Overall, however, there might be an increase in total parking revenue. This money could be used to help fund programs aimed at improving alternatives to automobile commuting such as student transit fare discounts.

There would be no additional costs to implementing the “Non-Commuter Zone.” However, students required to use means of transportation other than their cars might be strongly opposed. It might also be difficult for the University to ban parking for on-campus freshmen if this affected student applications and acceptances. For any new satellite lots, it would be costly to acquire property and then to run a shuttle service to the lots.

The significant role of parking fees in funding the Department of Transportation Services creates a disincentive for the Department to limit parking, facilitate transit use, or otherwise discourage automobile commuting. If parking is reduced in the future, alternative funding mechanisms for the Department may need to be explored.

Recommendation

The University should review its pricing and other parking policies to make them more sustainable. Parking fees should be used as a policy instrument to alter faculty and student behavior to serve the University’s environmental objectives. Student parking fees should be raised to levels more commensurate with the marginal costs to the University of providing parking facilities and the environmental costs of student commuting. Satellite lots should be constructed at locations off the campus to provide long term parking for those students living on campus who have a car. If fewer cars are parked on campus, some parking lots should be returned to lawns and meadows. The University should reduce single-occupant commuting to the campus by implementing a “Non-Commuter Zone” based on proximity to campus and shuttle routes. Parking permits would not be issued to students living in this zone. The assumption that automobiles should provide the basic means of transportation for most students should be revisited – in conjunction with changes in other transportation policies to enhance non-automotive options.

104

MEMO 28: Bus Washing

TO: Linda Clement, Ann WylieFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Bus Washing

Current Status on Campus

The UM Shuttle service at the University of Maryland currently uses a bus washing system that causes the UM Shuttle maintenance crew many problems. Washing on a large shuttle bus with the existing system uses about 40-50 gallons of water. Much of the work must be done manually through the use of tall brushes. Washing the buses with brushes can harm the paint and accelerate aesthetic damage to the fleet. It is important that the fleet look its best since it travels routes several miles from campus and serves as one form of advertising for the campus.

Another consequence of manual washing is that the crew cannot wash the buses in the winter. Cold temperatures could turn the washing area into an ice sheet as well as be uncomfortable and dangerous for crew workers. The wash water is currently drained away, but could be recovered and recycled more efficiently. Positively, the maintenance crew is careful to use only biodegradable, environmentally-friendly chemicals to wash university buses.

Best Practices

Sunbus, a company in Australia, revamped their bus washing system in 2008 and gained considerable water savings. It installed two 23,000 liter rainwater tanks and two 3,000 liter holding tanks to capture rainwater from the roofs of several large buildings nearby. The rainwater is filtered and used in the automated bus wash and a recycling system captures 85% of the bus wash runoff water to reuse. Before using this automated system, it took eight workers about a day to wash ten buses. Now it takes only two workers one day to wash seventy-five buses with much less water. The system also has saved electricity and been helpful in addressing stormwater problems.16

Alternatives

The proposed East Campus development project will require moving the facilities that currently house the Shuttle UM bus washing system. This presents a convenient opportunity to reevaluate the efficiency of the system used before constructing a new one.

Additionally, permitting issues mandate that wash water be disposed of in ways that prevent damage to the surrounding watershed. Implementing a more efficient bus washing system that uses recycled water is one way of surmounting this problem.

16 Sunbus. (2008). Retrieved April 20, 2008 from Water at Work website: http://www.wateratwork.com.au/Sunbus.

One option would be to establish a contract with an outside company for washing the University's vehicles off-site. Another possibility would be for the University of Maryland to invest in purchasing a more efficient bus washing system for the new facility. Such a system would be able to recycle the wash water and save the university money. Maintenance crews would be able to wash the buses year round without any risks to their own health or safety and the shuttle buses would look their best all year. By eliminating the need for brushes, the bus washing system could be used to wash many other types of vehicles on campus from other departments that are not currently washed in this system because of risks to their paint.

The company Belanger manufactures a touchless, automatic large vehicle wash system called V-Max. Maintenance requirements are minimal and the system has been shown to be quite reliable. Large vehicles from a 30-foot dump truck to a 75-foot tractor trailer can be washing in as little as 3-6 minutes. It can be programed with four different wash options at once to address different types of vehicles' needs.17 Recycling wash water and using less water would have benefits for stormwater management.

Costs/Issues

The main hurdle to surmount for this project is the high cost of conversion. According to Don St. Armand, the university Department of Transportation's maintenance operations manager, equipment to update the bus washing system will cost about $200,000. Additional changes would also need to be made to the maintenance bay. However, Mr. St. Armand estimates that through the use of this system, water use could decrease to 20-30 gallons per large bus, or about a 50-60% reduction in water use.18

Recommendations

The East Campus redevelopment plan presents a timely opportunity to improve the efficiency of the university's bus washing systems. Resources should be devoted towards a new bus washing facility in order to reduce the university's water consumption and the amount of time and money spent on cleaning all types of university vehicles.

17 Belanger, V-Max. http://www.belangerinc.com/v-max.18 St. Armand, Don. Personal Interview. 25 March 2009.

106

MEMO 29: Traffic Alternatives for Campus Drive

TO: Ann Wylie, Linda ClementFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Traffic Alternatives for Campus Drive

Current Status on Campus

Campus drive is the major road through the university utilized by local buses, UM-Shuttle buses, automobile traffic, pedestrians, and bicyclists because of its unique location at the heart of campus. This clogs the street’s traffic as vehicles give right of way to pedestrians at numerous crosswalks. Because of this, the traffic on the street moves inefficiently, lengthening bus trips, increasing pollution, and decreasing fuel efficiency for the campus fleet. An improvement to the traffic flow on Campus Drive could improve shuttle efficiency as well as provide a more welcoming environment for pedestrians and bikers on campus. The Strategic Plan states that the University should “discourage automobile traffic to and from the campus” and “decrease congestion.” Altering traffic flows on Campus Drive could have a significant impact on these goals.

Best Practices

Many universities across the country limit traffic onto inner-campus streets unless the proper pass is provided. Automobiles are instead re-routed along the perimeter towards parking lots and garages. The interior streets, then, provide an environment solely for pedestrians, bicyclists, buses, and university vehicles.

Rutgers plans to introduce a new plan to create a pedestrian-first environment where car driving becomes inconvenient.19 The heart of the strategy is to limit traffic along the central College Ave. to only buses and pedestrians. They are also eliminating metered parking and several parking lots along the street in order to push automobiles towards exterior lots. Students can then use the shuttle service to get to campus.

As a broader example of how limiting traffic on a street can actually improve traffic flow, New York City plans to close off Broadway to vehicle traffic. The City’s analysis of traffic patterns showed that blocking off the street to vehicles would actually improve traffic and create a pedestrian friendly space.20

Alternatives

One possibility to change the traffic flow on Campus Dr. would be to block the street off to automobiles. The University could set up a security gate where vehicles enter from Route 1 and force all non-permitted traffic right onto Paint Branch. There is an abundance of parking in that direction which should be the ultimate destination for the cars. Campus Dr, then, could be closed

19 http://www.dailytargum.com/news/campus-alters-traffic-routes-upgrades-historic-buildings-1.164999720 http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/nyregion/26broadway.html?_r=2

all the way up to Mowatt/Valley Drive. Any cars wishing to park in the lots on that side of the University would have to enter from Adelphi. All University vehicles and those with special passes would be allowed through these security gates and would find less traffic on Campus Drive. This less congested street would make it much safer for the pedestrians walking through campus.

Another option would be to limit the number of crosswalks and implement walk signals to better regulate when cars or pedestrians have the right of way. Currently, a car or bus could be stalled at a pedestrian crosswalk while a steady stream of pedestrians passes through, but these signals would help rationalize the traffic flow.

Costs/Issues

Campus police and administration, in the past, have not been willing to block vehicular traffic on Campus Dr. except during special events like football games. So, this limiting of traffic is not completely unfamiliar, but it would require a major shift in the perspective of everyday commuting at the University. Because of this resistance, it would be beneficial to start with experimentation with this idea. By blocking off the street at different locations, the University could measure how drivers adapt and how successfully the street is cleared for pedestrians, bicyclists, and buses. The main cost of the program could be in street improvements along the alternative routes.

In terms of adding crosswalk signals, this would be a negative for the pedestrians who are currently given the right of way. As the campus looks to encourage a pedestrian friendly campus, it seems that the University should actually be catering to the pedestrians. There is also the possibility that the signals would not be strictly followed by the pedestrians.

Recommendation

A series of experiments during the school year should set aside days to test the effects of limiting traffic on Campus Drive. On these days, varying distances of the street could be blocked off to car traffic in order to determine how the campus community is affected by each of the changes of traffic flow.

108

MEMO 30: Hybrid Buses

TO: Ann Wylie, Linda Clement FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Hybrid Buses

Current Status on Campus

The University of Maryland's Shuttle UM fleet currently uses 58 shuttle buses that run on biodiesel. In Fiscal Year 2008, they used 240,777 gallons of B5 (biodiesel 5%) fuel. This equals about 2,296 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent. Warranties on these buses currently only cover up to 20% biodiesel in buses. In the long term, the university may want to consider other transportation options in order to decrease money spent on fuel and avoid emissions of greenhouse gases. One option currently being considered is switching to hybrid buses.

Best Practices

Several universities have begun introducing hybrid vehicles in their fleets, although diesel buses are still much more common. For example, Ball State University uses biodiesel fuel in its shuttle buses and has purchased one hybrid electric bus and several hybrid electric cars for its fleet. Stony Brook University is awaiting the arrival of a hybrid bus that it purchased.21 The University of Minnesota, Duluth partners with the Duluth Transportation Authority (DTA) to meet its needs. The DTA currently has two hybrid buses in its fleet and has plans to add two more in the near future. Replicating these small scale examples may be feasible at the University of Maryland.22 Since only a few universities seem to use hybrids and only have a few hybrids in their fleets, there may be some downsides to using this technology.

Alternatives

Several shuttle bus options are currently being used in fleets nationally, including diesel, biodiesel, compressed natural gas (CNG) and hybrid buses. In order to assess the merit of switching to hybrid buses, it is helpful to consider other alternatives.

The National Renewable Energy Laboratory compared CNG buses to hybrid buses in a case study of a New York City fleet. An investment of about $9.4 million was required to convert facilities for the CNG buses and $140,000 (plus resources to construct a crane for battery maintenance) was required for the hybrid buses. The CNG buses had a fuel economy of 1.70 miles per diesel energy equivalent gallon, 25% lower than the comparison diesel study group which had 2.28 mpg. Hybrid buses had a fuel economy of 3.19 mpg, or 40% higher than the diesel group. The hybrid buses averaged between 60-120% higher than the CNG buses in diesel

21 Implementation profile for University of Minnesota-Duluth. (2008). Retrieved April 20, 2009 from American College & University Presidents Climate Commitment website: http://acupcc.aashe.org/report.php?id=2104.22 University of Minnesota, Morris 2008 campus sustainability leadership award application. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education website: http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat3_114.php

gallon equivalent units throughout the study. During this period, the CNG fuel costs per mile were 45% higher than hybrid buses and 31% higher than the diesel buses. Hybrid buses used in this study cost $385,000 each, or about 25-35% higher than a similar new standard diesel bus. This New York City fleet announced an order of 500 new hybrid buses at a little less than $500,000 each. 23 In summary, the hybrid buses had the best fuel economy of these alternatives and the lowest fuel cost, but have quite high upfront costs.

According to Don St. Armand, the university Department of Transportation Service's maintenance operations manager, the average diesel bus in the Maryland fleet gets about 2-2.5 miles per gallon. A hybrid bus would run on battery power at speeds up to 30 miles per hour. At speeds above this level, the fuel engine begins to run. The maximum speed on campus is 20 miles per hour, thus theoretically most of the time the fleet would be running on battery power. Under this assumption, the new buses would get 4.5-5.5 miles per gallon for shuttles that ran primarily on campus. Other routes that travel further away would be less efficient.24

Hybrid buses currently have high upfront costs, but large long term savings in fuel use and emissions. These upfront costs likely will come down over time as the technology evolves. The University of Maryland should not convert the entire fleet at this time. However, the university could benefit from piloting a program with one or two buses. From this program, the Department of Transportation Services could estimate which routes would best fit a hybrid bus system and how much the fuel savings for Maryland would be. It could also serve as a learning experience for the Department staff for a more robust fleet conversion in the future.

Costs/Issues

Replacing one biodiesel shuttle bus with a hybrid bus could cost up to $500,000 per bus. A standard diesel bus costs about $300,000. Natural gas buses are about $50,000 more than conventional diesel buses. Natural gas buses also tend to have lower NOx emissions than diesel hybrids because of different standards for diesel vehicles. Additionally, there are still some uncertainties related to the fuel economy and emissions differences between hybrid and diesel buses.

A University of Connecticut study performed road tests on two hybrid buses and two conventional diesel buses. Results showed no clear difference in emissions between the two vehicle types. Studies have shown lower emissions of smog components from hybrid buses compared to diesel buses, but their methods have been called into question. The Connecticut Department of Transportation found about a 10% fuel economy increase in hybrid buses compared to conventional diesel. As these different technologies compete for lowest emissions and best fuel economy, the university may want to wait on converting the entire fleet until this data becomes conclusive.25

23 Barnitt, R., Chandler, K. (2006). New York City transit (NYCT) hybrid (125 Order) and CNG transit buses final evaluation results. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from Alternative Fuels & Advanced Vehicles Data Center, U.S. Department of Energy website: http://www.afdc.energy.gov/afdc/pdfs/fleet_hybrid_cng_bus.pdf.24 St. Armand, Don. Personal Interview. 25 March 2009.25 Hybrid Watchdog: Hybrid Transit Buses Are They Really Green? (2007) Retrieved April 20, 2009 from Hybridcenter.org: http://www.hybridcenter.org/hybrid-transit-buses.html.

110

Recommendation

The University of Maryland should invest in one or two hybrid buses in order to gain experience with this new technology and judge its potential for lowering the emissions and fuel use of Shuttle UM. While the technology is not currently economically preferable, the university can raise its sustainability profile through a pilot hybrid program and gain useful knowledge for the future when potentially prices of hybrid bus vehicles come down.

111

MEMO 31: Offsetting and/or Limiting Airline Travel

TO: Anne WylieFROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Offsetting and/or Limiting Airline Travel

Current Status on Campus

Currently, air travel accounts for roughly 13% of campus carbon emissions.26 These are flights taken by University faculty and staff for business reasons, those taken by athletic teams, and those for some student programs. It only includes flights paid for by the University directly, not through personal expense or outside reimbursement. In 2007, the campus community combined to fly over 60 million passenger-miles, but the Strategic Plan indicates that “the University will develop a strategy for reducing unnecessary institutional travel.”

Currently, travelers are encouraged but not required to purchase plane tickets through one of three travel agencies under contract with the University: Globetrotter Travel, Omega World Travel, or Travel-On. First class airfare is not permitted and passengers are expected to take the most direct, cheapest flight.27 Travelers must also fill out travel approval requests before their travels.

Best Practices

The University of British Columbia reached an agreement with WestJet Airlines that provides the University with a 2% rebate on all ticket purchases. This rebate then goes to a carbon offset company thus allowing the University to offset the carbon emissions of flights at no extra cost.28

Yale has an arrangement with Amtrak where eligible personnel can receive up to 25% off of train travel anywhere along the Northeast corridor between Connecticut and Washington, DC.29 These discounts are only available when purchasing through Orbitz and are available for both business and personal travel.

Alternatives

The University could look into implementing an air travel carbon offset program. The price of these offset could come from the same department funds that pay for the ticket.The University might also follow the lead of the University of British Columbia and enter into negotiations with their contracted travel agencies and airlines to see if the offset prices could be included as rebates in ticket purchases.

The most direct way to reduce carbon emissions, though, would be to take action to limit flights by encouraging alternative means of travel for shorter distance trips. For example, the University 26 Carbon Footprint of the University of Maryland, College Park: An Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions, pg. 527 http://www.dbs.umd.edu/travel/policy/umtravel/trav_guide.php28 http://climateaction.ubc.ca/2009/02/26/ubc-reaches-deal-with-westjet-to-offset-travel29 http://www.yale.edu/travel/ground/Amtrak%20info%20sheet.htm

could require train travel for trips within a certain distance or along the Northeast corridor where rail is easily available. The University could also enter into a Yale-like agreement with Amtrak that would make train travel more economically viable for business and personal travel. This is important because the difference between the carbon emissions for a trip by rail and by plane is significant. Carbonfund estimates that a 2,500 mile trip by rail produces approximately 992 lbs of CO2 while the same distance by air results in 1,929 lbs. of CO2. Amtrak has partnered with the Carbonfund organization to make it simpler for travelers to offset their miles. Since University rail travel would be discounted through this program, the University could offer to pay this extra price to offset the emissions produced. A $4.50 contribution is estimated to offset Amtrak travel for two passengers roundtrip from Washington to New York.30

The University could also create incentives for video conferencing as an alternative to air travel. Currently, video conferencing is provided at seven locations on campus and charged on a per-use basis. In order to make this option more appealing, the University could offer departments an option to purchase year- or semester-long passes to use these facilities. These would create a strong demand for repeated use since the department would basically have unlimited access once it purchased the pass. This would also provide a steady stream of income for the video conferencing facilities.

It could also be beneficial to make sure personnel know how their air travel is contributing to their personal carbon footprint. Faculty and staff could be required to maintain records and report on their air carbon emissions. This would make clearer to faculty and staff the greenhouse impacts they are having with their airline travel and hopefully help to influence their behavior through personal responsibility.

Costs/Issues/Hurdles

An offset purchase program would come at a high financial cost to the university unless it successfully limits the number of flights taken by the campus community. It might also be difficult to negotiate a contract with a travel agency that would offer a rebate program for carbon offsets such as the University of British Columbia has done. Even if the University was able to negotiate such a contract, faculty and staff travel arrangements are not required to go through the contracted travel agencies. To overcome this, the University could charge a carbon offset to those who purchase tickets from a different source. This would strengthen the ties to the travel agents, making it more likely that they would be willing to partner with the University, and would also assure that miles flown would be offset.

Faculty and staff might have a hard time accepting a requirement to travel by rail along the Northeast corridor. It would be more workable to alter their travel through a discount program. As the agreement with Yale illustrates, Amtrak may be willing to negotiate with the University to promote travel along the corridor. Some will still find it more convenient to fly, though. A trip from Washington, DC to New York takes about an hour of flight time by air and 3 hours by rail (the total travel time of course depends on the origin and final destination).. Currently, a round trip is a similar price so it might take a discount on rail tickets to encourage that mode of transportation.

30 http://www.carbonfund.org/site/pages/land/amtrak

113

Video conferencing would not always be a suitable replacement for direct personal contact. The facilities also require staff and maintenance to run. If too many departments began using the services frequently, the facilities might not be able to cope with the demand under their limited budgets.

In terms of requiring extra informational reporting for faculty and staff of their airline travel and resulting carbon impacts, there would be minimal extra financial cost to the University to mandate this. However, it would require faculty time and other administrative costs. It is unknown whether it would actually influence travel behavior.

Recommendation

The University should contact Amtrak and Orbitz to seek to negotiate a University discount to encourage rail travel along the Northeast corridor. The University should also begin discussions with their contracted travel agents to see if an agreement can be reached to receive rebates on ticket purchases that would go to purchasing carbon offsets. If not, when these contracts are up, the University should look to find a travel agent that will cover offsets. Since the University does not require travel to be arranged through these agents, it should also collect a carbon offset surcharge on all University reimbursed tickets not purchased through the travel agent.

114

CAMPUS SUSTAINABILITY OPTIONS FOR DINING AND OTHER

STUDENT SERVICES

115

Dining Services, perhaps the most environmentally aware office on campus, sends all pre- and post-consumer food waste off campus to be composted and has reduced the amount of waste generated by cooking food to-order instead of preparing meals in bulk. Some of the other improvements dining services has made include replacement of polystyrene foam containers with biodegradable products and no longer selling bottled water.

In addition, the chiller for the air conditioner at the North Campus Diner will be replaced. Currently, a sprinkler is used to cool the chiller in the summer. This upgrade will allow the chiller to use 50 percent less energy.1 A solar hot water heater will be installed on the roof of the North Campus Diner. This upgrade will save energy by pre-heating water used in dish machines. Variable-speed exhaust hoods and air handlers will replace older, more energy-intensive models. The variable-speed hoods and air handlers run at lower speeds at certain times to reduce energy consumption. Replacing twelve hoods in the North Campus Diner would decrease heat energy by 417 kBtu, cooling by 36,000 kBtu, and electricity by 26,130 kWh.2

Refrigeration units across campus have recently been replaced with energy star rated systems. The next step is to replace the current refrigeration units (which use hydrofluorocarbons, a potent greenhouse gas) with more environmentally-friendly ones. According to the EPA, Energy Star-rated commercial refrigerators are, on average, 30 percent more energy efficient.

Dish machines that use electric heat will be replaced with steam-heated models, which would use 50 percent less water and energy.3 One such machine has been purchased for the North Campus Diner, but two more are needed for the other dining halls.

Old conventional ovens are being replaced with combi ovens. The old ovens need to be heated to 250 degrees around the clock.  When cold, they take 12 hours to warm up.  These ovens have a single heat source at the bottom.  Inside the oven is a rotating carousel that holds baskets for food.  The carousel must be left running at all times or the baskets on the bottom, near the heat source, will warp.  The new combi ovens use three types of heat: convention (a heating element that warms the sides of the oven), convection (a fan in the back of the oven with a heating element behind it rotates heat within the oven) and steam injection.  Convection heating uses 1/4 the energy of convention heat and has no heat-up time.  These units cost $25,000 per stack (a stack is two units on top of each other) and Dining Services would need 10 stacks per dining hall.  Overall, the new units would use less than 10% of the energy of the old units.4

1 Mullineaux, J. Personal Interview. 26 Feb. 2009.2 Mullineaux, J. Personal Interview. 26 Feb. 2009.3 Mullineaux, J. Personal Interview. 26 Feb. 2009.4 Mullineaux, J. Personal Interview. 26 Feb. 2009.

MEMO 32: Bagasse Pricing and Procurement

TO: Linda Clement FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Bagasse Pricing and Procurement

Current Status on Campus

The University of Maryland Dining Services recently transitioned to bagasse take-out clamshells from polystyrene take-out clamshells. Bagasse clamshells, which are composed of sugarcane waste, are an environmentally preferable product because they are biodegradable and require no toxic chemicals to produce.5 However, a number of challenges exist for the bagasse policy. First, composting is not available at dorms; students must return used containers to dining halls. Second, bagasse ($.18 per unit) costs three times more than polystyrene ($.06 per unit), and even with a $.25 price on take-out meals, Dining Services is unsure how the bagasse policy will impact their bottom line. This policy brief will examine bagasse procurement at the University and propose options for improving the policy.

There are roughly 7,000 students with meal plans at the University of Maryland and a large portion of students select $.25 take-out containers over free china regularly. In February 2009, 49 percent of dining hall transactions included clamshells and during FY 2008, an estimated 1.1 million (polystyrene) clamshells were purchased by Dining Services.6 With the transition to bagasse, Dining Services has accounted for environmental costs. Still, Dining Services must deal with the high accounting costs of bagasse including downstream waste removal. With Dining Services paying $.18 per bagasse clamshell, the current price of $.25 per take-out meal may be insufficient to offset the total cost of a take-out meal.

One option for making the bagasse policy more cost-effective is to purchase fewer bagasse containers. Beginning in the spring 2009 semester, Dining Services began the Eat INitiative with the goal of reducing consumption of clamshells by 15 percent. The Eat INitiative includes posters on UM-Shuttles and text on the Dining Services website. Dining Services reported a 13.8 percent reduction in take-out meals per dining plan since the beginning of the spring 2009 semester.7 Whether or not the Eat INitiative can reach the 15 percent reduction goal remains to be seen, but any reduction in clamshell sales will reduce campus waste and should improve Dining Services financial standing. In addition to cost concerns, there are too few locations to compost bagasse clamshells on campus. The Stamp Student Union has a compost bin, but none of the dorms have compost bins and this is where a majority of students eat and dispose of clamshells. The benefits of bagasse will not be fully realized until students have opportunities to compost take-out containers at dorms and other non-dining hall locations.

5 Encyclopedia Britannica. http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/48728/bagasse. 6 Hipple, B. Personal interview. 25 Apr. 2009.7Ibid.

Best Practices

A preliminary search revealed no other institution of higher education charges for take-out containers though it is unlikely UMD is the only institution with this policy. However, there are interesting waste policies developing at college and university dining halls. For example, the University of Florida recently removed take-out containers from three of its dining locations and adopted a reuseable take-out container policy.8 University of Florida students can take-out no more than two containers at a time and when returned, University Dining Services will wash the container along with other dirty dishes.

Alternatives

Procurement of bagasse clamshells must become more cost-effective and composting on campus should expand. An action Dining Services could take to make procurement of bagasse clamshells more cost-effective is to increase the $.25 take-out meal price that has been in place for several years. In order to get students to respond to the price signal, the increase would have to be large, possibly over $.25. Increasing the take-out price would have a number of benefits in addition to making procurement of clamshells more cost-effective. First, the fee increase should reduce demand for take-out meals which would reduce solid waste. A second potential benefit is that more students will eat-in which would create more face-time among students and help build a stronger campus community.

Costs/Issues

Increasing the take-out price would have consequences. Although the china is free to students there is a cost to Dining Services related to cleaning used china and replacing broken and stolen china (both of which happen frequently). If the fee increase drives students to eat-in, then the cost of maintaining the china will increase. Also, if more students eat-in, then both dining halls would not be able to accommodate all students with seating. Because of the current seating scarcity at dining halls during lunch and diner, Dining Services actually benefits from having some students take out their food. The amount of seating on campus will increase when the Denton dining facility comes online.

The complications presented by a take-out meal price increase suggest bagasse clamshells are here to stay. The University must respond by reaping the co-benefits of having bagasse clamshells through an increase in the number of compost bins on-campus. Such an action would need to involve Facilities Management and Residential Facilities as these entities would be responsible for maintaining compost bins. Expanding the number of compost bins around campus would make students more aware of their waste habits, it could lead to other environmentally preferable procurement changes on-campus, and new University jobs could be created to oversee and maintain campus composting. One major concern with expanding composting is that compost removal is more expensive than regular waste removal. The cost of compost removal could be reduced if the University invests in compost pulpers. Also, food

8 University of Florida, Office of Sustainability. http://ufsustainability.blogspot.com/2009/01/gator-dinings-green-takeout.html

118

compost tends to smell, so providing and maintaining sanitary disposal centers will be important. An alternative to increasing compost locations outside of Dining Services could be to create some incentive for students to return bagasse clamshells to the dining halls where they can be composted.

Recommendation

Dining Services has begun to address the waste problems associated with take-out containers through its adoption of the bagasse clamshell policy and Eat INitiative. To ensure procurement of bagasse containers remains successful, Dining Services should take steps to increase the cost-effectiveness of bagasse procurement. The University as a whole, including Residential and Facilities Management in particular, should ensure bagasse can be composted easily throughout campus. The action steps for Dining Services should be to continue and/or expand the Eat INitiative and monitor whether or not a price increase in take-out meals is necessary. Also, Dining Services needs to communicate with Residential Management and Facilities Management to examine opportunities for expanding the quantity and range of compost bins on-campus.

119

MEMO 33: Campus Composting

To: Linda Clement, Ann Wylie FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Campus Composting

Current Status on Campus

The University of Maryland's three main dining halls, the North Campus Diner, Denton, and South Campus, compost their food waste, as does the Stamp student union.  This includes pre-consumer waste, such as peelings and other scraps, and post-consumer waste that is left on students' trays.  Currently, Dining Services pays to have the food scraps hauled away to be composted by a company called Envirelation, which charges a service fee and a per-volume fee.  The service fee is $527.56 per facility per month, a total of $1,582.68 per month.  The per-volume fee is $38.15 a ton.  The four facilities that use this service produce about 30 tons of food waste per month, combined. In March 2009, Dining Services' total composting bill was $2,140.29.9

Relying on this service limits the amount of food waste that can be composted. Food waste is collected by Envirelation every other day. In the mean time, it piles up on the loading docks of the dining halls. Space and health concerns limit the volume of food waste that can sit on the loading docks. Dining Services personnel are forced to put some compostable food waste into the trash compacter, limiting the environmental benefits of the composting program. There are also financial penalties for trashing compostable food waste: facilities management charges $55 per ton for waste removal, $16.85 per ton more than it costs to compost with EnviRelation.

Best Practices

Several other Universities around the country compost food waste from dining halls. At Cal State Chico10, food waste is taken to the campus’ organic farm. When a delivery is made, food from the farm is picked up and taken back to the dining hall, thus “closing the loop.” Dickinson College11 also composts its food waste in a student-run organic garden. At Ithaca College12, food waste from dining halls is composted on campus and used in landscaping. Arizona State University13 has its food waste composted on a local farm. It buys some of the compost back to use in landscaping.

Some large universities that produce substantial amounts of food waste use pulpers to facilitate their composting efforts. These machines grind and dehydrate food waste to produce a pulp that is much lighter-weight and less stinky than the raw food scraps. Colorado State University14, the

9 Envirelation, 2009.10 AASHE, 2008.11 AASHE, 2006.12 AASHE, 2006.13 AASHE, 2008.14 AASHE, 2008.

University of Maine15, and the University of Virginia16 all use pulpers in their dining halls. If composting on campus is infeasible at a particular university, pulping food waste can make it easier to transport to an off-campus composting facility.

Alternatives

Purchasing pulpers for UMCP’s two largest dining halls, the North Campus Diner and South Campus, would allow Dining Services to increase the amount of food waste that is composted. It would also make composting more sanitary. In March 2009, these two facilities produced about 20 tons of food waste, making up the bulk of the 30 tons produced by all four UMCP dining facilities that compost food waste.  Each pulper, including grabber magnets (to reduce silverware loss) and stainless steel troughs (to carry food waste to the pulper) costs $41,958. ($35,994 pulper + $1,484 grabber magnets + $4,480 troughs).  Once labor is included, total cost of each pulper comes to around $51,000.17

The pulpers that Dining services would like to buy are the Somat company's SPC-75S HT model.  This piece of equipment grinds and dehydrates food waste to produce a compound that is lighter, more sanitary, and takes up less volume than raw food waste.  Food waste enters the pulping tank via the feed tray.  There, it is mixed with water and ground into a slurry.  The slurry, consisting of 5% solids and 95% water, goes through a pipeline to the dehydrating chamber.  There, water is removed and the semi-dry pulp is discharged.  The water removed during the dehydration process is recovered and reused in grinding the next batch of food waste.  It is a closed-loop system with no plumbing hookup.  According to the manufacturer, this system can process 1,250 pounds of food waste mix per hour. 

Purchasing these pulpers would create environmental and financial benefits.  Greg Thompson from Dining Services estimates that four times as much food waste could be composted if the North Campus and South Campus dining halls were equipped with pulpers. Currently Envirelation acts as a middleman, charging to remove our food waste and selling it to a farm where it is composted. Dining Services could pay for the pulpers by eliminating the middle man and selling food waste directly to a composting facility. The following cost-benefit analysis shows that if pulped food waste were to be sold at $19 per ton, and disposal savings are factored in, Dining Services would break even on the cost of pulpers and related expenditures over a 20 year period.

Campus Composting: Cost-Benefit Analysis for Pulpers18

15 Cohen, 2007.16 University of Virginia, 2007. 17 Mullineaux, 2009 and Thompson, 2009.18 Assumptions:

Purchasing pulpers would allow Dining Services to compost 4x as much food waste in the Sept.-May period.

The cost of Envirelation's services remains at present rates. The pulping process uniformly produces an output with half the mass of the input. The University would need to purchase a $50,000 truck The truck gets 5 miles to the gallon and diesel costs $2.50/gallon The truck makes trips to the farm 5 days a week from Sept.-May. (Total: 200 trips/year) The University's staff expenditures, for maintenance and transportation, would increase by $30,000

121

Expenses: 2010 2011 2012 … 2029 2030Pulpers (2), equipment and installation 102000.00 0.00 0.00 … 0.00 0.00Staff 70000.00 70000.00 70000.00 … 70000.00 70000.00Vehicle 50000.00 0.00 0.00 … 0.00 0.00Fuel 2000.00 2000.00 2000.00 … 2000.00 2000.00Total costs: 224000.00 72000.00 72000.00 … 72000.00 72000.00

Income and savings:Savings- Former Envirelation Expenses 24544.62 24544.62 24544.62 … 24544.62 24544.62Savings- Former Waste Management Expenses 44550.00 44550.00 44550.00 … 44550.00 44550.00Pulp Sales 10260.00 10260.00 10260.00 … 10260.00 10260.00Total benefits: 79354.62 79354.62 79354.62 … 79354.62 79354.62

Annual Balance -144645.38 7354.62 7354.62 … 7354.62 7354.62Total Balance -144645.38 -137290.76 -129936.14 … -4907.60 2447.02

As an alternative to pulpers, Dining Services may want to consider purchasing in-vessel composting systems. While pulpers grind and dehydrate food waste to facilitate off-site composting, in-vessel systems compost food waste on-site in an enclosed unit. The advantage of such a system is that the compost it produces would be ready to use for campus landscaping operations. Dining Services has reservations about in-vessel systems because they are larger than pulpers and space may not be available.

Another option is working with one of University of Maryland’s agricultural experiment farms. The Clarkesville facility currently composts animal carcasses and could potentially expand composting operations to include campus food waste. However, Dining Services has previously proposed this idea and found that the farm is reluctant to take food waste due to health concerns. Pulping the food waste could make it more sanitary and acceptable to the farm.

Costs/Issues

The pulper would last for 20 years. 810 pounds of food waste could be composted that would otherwise go in the trash. Per-volume pulp revenue: $19.00

Parameters: Pulper cost, per unit: $51,000.00 Monthly food waste mass, pre-pulping, Sept-May: 30 tons Monthly food waste mass, pre-pulping, June-August: 0 tons Total annual food waste mass, pre-pulping: 270 tons Total annual post-pulping food waste mass:540 tons Envirelation monthly facility charge: $1582.68 Envirelation annual facility charge: $14244.12 Envirelation per-volume charge: $38.15 Pulp shipping distance: 20 miles Trash disposal cost: $55.00

122

Dining Services does not currently have funding to purchase two pulpers. Authorizing this purchase would allow 810 tons of food waste a year to be diverted from a landfill and instead be used to enhance soil productivity. In the long run pulpers save money on waste disposal and instead allow Dining Services to sell food waste for a profit.

Additional expenditures may be necessary to maintain the pulpers and transport food waste to a composting facility. The University may need to hire new staff and purchase a truck. Selling food waste at $19 per ton would cover an additional $70,000 per year in staff salaries and the one-time purchase of a $50,000 truck.

If food waste were composted at one of UMD’s agricultural experimentation farms, Dining Services would not be able to sell it and it would therefore be more difficult to recoup capital and labor expenditures.

Recommendations

Expanding food-waste composting capacity will allow Dining Services to become more sustainable. Purchasing pulpers would allow more food waste to be composted in a sanitary manner. Dining Services can recoup the cost of pulpers and related expenditures by selling its food waste to a composting facility. In the future, cooperating with a University of Maryland farm to establish an in-house composting program could be explored, but at present the farm is not open to such a partnership.

Key Information Sources

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2006). Dickinson College 2006 Campus Sustainability Achievement Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/dickinson2006.php

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (2006). Ithaca College 2006 Campus Sustainability Achievement Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/ithaca2006.php

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2008). Arizona State University 2008 Sustainability Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_136.php

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2008). California State University, Chico 2008 Sustainability Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_91.php

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2008). Colorado State University 2008 Sustainability Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_138.php

Cohen, S. (2007, September 30). Hilltop compost system cuts campus waste in half. The Maine Campus. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://media.www.mainecampus.com/media/storage/paper322/news/2007/10/01/News/Hilltop.Compost.System.Cuts.Campus.Waste.In.Half-3001462-page2.shtml

123

Envirelation. Bill to University of Maryland Dining Services. 31 Mar. 2009.

Mullineaux, J. Personal Interview. 26 Feb. 2009.

Thompson, G. Email to Author. 18 Mar. 2009.

University of Virginia. (2007, May 4). Housing, dining honored for environmental efforts. UVA Today. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.virginia.edu/uvatoday/newsRelease.php?id=1994

U.S. Department of Labor. (2009, April 17). Current Unemployment Rates for States and Historical Highs/Lows. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.bls.gov/web/lauhsthl.htm

124

MEMO 34: Catering Waste

To: Linda ClementFrom: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRe: Catering Waste

Current Status on Campus

There are three types of catering at the University of Maryland: Good Tydings, Goodies to Go, and orders that customers pick up themselves.  Good Tydings is full-service catering with service staff, glassware, and china.  Goodies to Go is delivered by Dining Services to on-campus events.  Once food is delivered, customers are expected to set it up and serve it themselves.  Dining Services provides customers with tablecloths and disposable dining ware that are included in the cost of Goodies to Go orders.  Although it is not advertised, plant-based compostable dining ware and compost containers are available by request.  For pick-up orders, customers pay for the quantity of disposable tableware and tablecloths that they desire. 

Goodies to Go is used for many campus functions such as staff meetings, conferences, and seminars.  Attendees of these events often find that Dining Services provides them with an excessive amount of tableware and tablecloths.  Many offices around campus accumulate countless cups, pieces of silverware, tablecloths, and sturdy plastic serving trays from catered meetings and events throughout the school year. 

Best Practices

Other universities around the country have committed to reducing their catering waste.  California State University Chico19 uses reusable china dishes and silverware in its catering, and also offers the option of compostable dishes and flatware.  The University of California Santa Barbara20 and Santa Clara University21 also use biodegradable tableware.  Ithaca College22 provides compostable products as a standard for casual events and offers a zero-waste catering option with reusable china, silverware, etc.  Yale University23 developed sustainable event guidelines.  Events are awarded a bronze, silver, or gold sustainability rating depending on how many guidelines they adhere to.   

Alternatives

The University of Maryland's Dining Services department can become more sustainable and save money by reducing catering waste.  The Goodies to Go and pick-up services should be targeted for waste reduction, as Good Tydings utilizes reusable items.  A successful catering waste reduction policy would focus on providing only the tableware that customers need and diverting used tableware from the waste stream through recycling and composting. 19 AASHE, 2006.20 AASHE, 2008.21 AASHE, 2008.22 AASHE, 2006.23 Bhushan, 2008.

Dining Services could reduce catering waste in a cost-effective way by having Goodies to Go customers order the quantity of tableware that they need for an event.  The order form for Goodies to Go could be revised to resemble the one for pick up orders, where customers specify exactly how many plates, forks, spoons, etc. they need with their order and pay per item.  Dining Services should allow customers to return durable items such as serving trays, scoops, and ice buckets.  These items could then be reused, given away, or recycled as management sees fit. For pick-up orders, customers already pay per item of tableware, but pick-up customers should also be allowed to return durable serving materials for reuse.

Campus catering could also be made more sustainable by facilitating better disposal methods for catering materials.  The availability of compostable plant-based tableware and compost bins could be more widely advertised.  Customers should be able to indicate a preference for plant-based tableware on their order forms, and be charged accordingly.  Customers should also be able to request compost and recycle bins as part of their order, which would be collected by Dining Services staff after the event.  Eventually, Dining Services could exclusively offer plant-based tableware and provide compost service for every event that they cater.

Another option is to have reusable china, silverware, and glassware available for Goodies-to-Go and pick-up customers to rent.  To ensure that items are returned, Dining Services could require that customers put down a deposit for reusable tableware, or bill the department in question when they fail to return these pieces. 

A University's catering service is one of its most visible elements to visitors, as well as prospective students and faculty members.  The University of Maryland's commitment to campus sustainability is admirable, but it is important that this commitment shows in the image that the University puts out to the public.  Sustainable catering will show that the University is at the forefront of sustainable higher education. 

Costs/Issues

Changing catering policy so that Goodies-to-Go customers pay per item of tableware should not impose additional costs on dining services. Additional labor needs created by such a policy should be negligible.

Biodegradable tableware is more expensive than traditional plastic and polystyrene items, but this should not present a hurdle if customers pay for each item. Customers may protest the additional cost, but catering is a luxury item and it is important that catered events, which are often attended by visitors to the University, reflect the University’s values and commitment to sustainability.

Providing compost bins, and collecting used serving materials, may create additional labor costs for Dining Services. Employees would need to collect compost bins after an event, as well as sort and wash serving materials. Providing reusable china, silverware, and glassware for Goodies-to-Go and pick-up customers would also create additional labor costs, as these items would need to be collected and washed.

126

It is possible that the cost of these services could be included in catering prices.

Recommendation

Dining Services’ first step in reducing catering waste should be to revise the Goodies-to-Go order form and tableware policy so that customers specify which tableware items they want and pay per item. Initially, plant-based items should be offered, but eventually both Goodies-to-Go and pick-up orders should exclusively offer biodegradable tableware. Compost bins must be provided for catered events to achieve the full environmental benefits of plant-based tableware.

Allowing customers to rent reusable tableware and glassware is an option that could be utilized in the future, but this would present a greater logistic hurdle. A change in catering policy where customers order tableware items individually and a transition to plant-based materials is a low-hanging fruit to improve Dining Services’ sustainability that can be accomplished with little disruption to catering operations.

Key Information Sources

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2006). California State University, Chico 2006 Sustainability Achievement Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/csuchico2006.php

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2006). Ithaca College 2006 Sustainability Achievement Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/ithaca2006.php

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2008). University of California, Santa Barbara 2008 Campus Sustainability Leadership Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_77.php

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2008). Santa Clara University 2008 Campus Sustainability Leadership Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/cat4_134.php

Bhushan, A. (2008, February 14). ‘Green’ events up for gold, silver, and bronze. Yale Daily News. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.yaledailynews.com/articles/view/23519

127

MEMO 35: Biodiesel

To: Ann Wiley, Linda ClementFrom: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRe: Biodiesel

Current Status on Campus

The University of Maryland produces 7,500 gallons of cooking grease annually in its dining facilities.24 The used grease is removed free of charge by a company that makes it into biodiesel.  Dining Services considers this a good arrangement, as they would otherwise have to pay to dispose of the grease. 

The University’s shuttle fleet uses B5 biodiesel (5% biodiesel and 95% petrodiesel). The Department of Transportation Services experimented with B20 (20% biodiesel) but found that this voided the busses’ warranties. Lawn mowers also use gasoline and diesel fuel, while lawnmowers that run on B20 are commercially available. Facilities management is looking to experiment with biodiesel in its cogeneration power plant.25

Best Practices

A few schools around the country have biodiesel production facilities on campus, using cooking grease or other feedstocks to produce fuel for vehicles and equipment.  Chemistry students at Lane Community College26 in Oregon make biodiesel from waste cooking grease, which is used to fuel the campus boiler.  The University of New Hampshire27 uses biodiesel made from campus cooking grease to fuel some farm equipment and heat some greenhouses and farm buildings.  At Furman University28, the student environmental action group produces biodiesel from used cooking grease and sells it at a discount to Facilities Services for use in their vehicles and equipment.  This serves as a fundraiser for the student group.  The University of Tennessee29 received a state grant to construct two biodiesel production facilities: one for used kitchen grease and one for alternative feed stocks.  The University of Central Oklahoma30 makes biodiesel to supply 100% of its campus diesel requirements.

Alternatives

Fueling the University of Maryland’s power plant with biodiesel made out of used cooking grease from the dining halls can save the University money on fuel while providing for environmentally friendly grease disposal.  Making biodiesel on campus could provide a closed-loop system for processing used cooking grease, save money on fuel, and provide students with

24 Thompson, 2009.25 Kowal, 2009.26 Hayward & Thompson27 AASHE, 200628 AASHE, 200729 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 200730 AASHE, 2007

an educational experience by allowing them to participate in making the biodiesel.

Using homemade biodiesel to fuel the University’s power plant would produce substantial environmental benefits.31 Facilities management also has three diesel-operated lawnmowers that could be replaced with biodiesel-compatible models. Biodiesel is carbon neutral, as the plant matter that makes up the feedstock removes the same amount of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere as is emitted when the biodiesel is combusted.  Carbon monoxide emissions are about 50% lower32 in biodiesel than petrodiesel. Additional environmental benefits could be gleaned from student participation in making biodiesel.  Employing students, perhaps those studying chemistry or engineering, in synthesizing biodiesel would create awareness of waste reduction and build skills that would allow students to use their UMCP education in building a more sustainable world. 

There are two local organizations, founded by University of Maryland graduates, that could help the University start producing biodiesel on campus. Biodiesel University is a mobile biodiesel production facility that educates the public about renewable energy. The Green Guild Biodiesel Group is a member-based group that promotes and produces biodiesel.

Cost/Issues

Based on the cost of a similar project at the University of Tennessee33, purchasing the capital equipment necessary to make biodiesel on campus would cost about $100,000. Dining hall cooking grease could only produce about 375 gallons of biodiesel a year.34 So, in order for the University to get the greatest return on its investment in biodiesel production equipment, it could also collect cooking grease from area restaurants. Many restaurants pay to have their cooking grease removed, so they are likely to be receptive if the University offered to collect it free of charge.

Another hurdle to using biodiesel for power generation is the warranty on the campus boilers and emergency generators. Currently, the manufacturer’s warranty on the boiler’s engine does not cover operation on biodiesel. Still, facilities management hopes to test the boilers on biodiesel within a year.35

Recommendation

Facilities Management should purchase biodiesel production equipment and partner with Biodiesel University or the Green Guild Biodiesel group to train students to make biodiesel from cooking grease. To maximize the return on this capital investment, partnerships can be formed with local restaurants to collect their used cooking grease as well.

Biodiesel produced in-house could be used in campus lawnmowers, converted diesel vehicles, and the cogeneration plant. Using homemade biodiesel will save on fuel costs, contribute to 31 As compared to petrodiesel. 32 National Biodiesel Board33 Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, 200734 Used cooking grease converts to biodiesel at a roughly 20:1 ratio. See San Francisco Chronical, 2009.35 Kowal, 2009.

129

energy independence, and reduce the University’s carbon footprint.

Key Information Sources

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2006). University of New Hampshire 2006 Sustainability Achievement Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/unewhampshire2006.php

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2007). Furman University 2007 Campus Sustainability Leadership Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/furman2007.php

Association for the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education. (2007). University of Central Oklahoma 2007 Campus Sustainability Leadership Award Application. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.aashe.org/resources/profiles/oklahoma2007.php

Hayward, J. & Thompson, J. Biodiesel Project at Lane Community College. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.league.org/league/projects/sustainability/files/Biodiesel.pdf

Kowal, J. Email to author. 14 Apr. 2009.

National Biodiesel Board. Biodiesel for Electrical Generation. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.biodiesel.org/markets/ele/

San Francisco Chronical. (2009, Feb. 8). S.F. to convert guckiest cooking grease to fuel. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/02/05/BA5D15NJD0.DTL

Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation. (2007, July 6). Bredesen announces alternative fuel innovation grants. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.state.tn.us/environment/news/release/2007/Jul/altfuelgrants.shtml

Thompson, G. Email to author. 18 Mar. 2009.

130

MEMO 36: Bottled Water

To: Linda ClementFrom: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRe: Bottled Water

Current Status on Campus

Recognizing the environmental damage of bottled water, the University of Maryland's Department of Dining Services recently stopped selling bottled water in dining halls.  Bottled water has been replaced by triple-filtered dispensing systems, which are available in the dining rooms for students to fill their cups or bottles.  However, bottled water is still sold in campus cafes, convenience stores, and concession stands. During the Fall 2008 semester, Dining Services sold 90,042 bottles of water.36

Bottled water is damaging to the environment because it creates excessive waste, it is energy-intensive to transport, manufacturing the bottles releases pollutants, and the pervasive use of bottled water for drinking can lead to neglect for the safety of tap water.  Nationwide, only 23.5%37 of plastic bottles were recycled in 2006.  Even when bottles are recycled, it would be better for the environment if they were not used in the first place.  Recycling is an energy-intensive process that should be intended for waste that cannot be reduced.  The wide-spread use of bottled water is a relatively new trend and waste produced by the practice can be eliminated by reverting to tap water use.  Bottled water is also energy-intensive to manufacture and transport.  17 million barrels of oil a year are used to manufacture water bottles.38 Additionally, water can travel thousands of miles before reaching the consumer.  According to a 2007 research paper by Paul Fagiolo, then a Masters degree candidate at the University of Maryland School of Public Policy, "The total energy needed to make, transport, and dispose of one bottle of water is equivalent to filling the same bottle one-quarter full of oil." Manufacturing the plastic bottles also releases harmful pollutants such as phthalates into the environment. 

Tests by the FDA and others show that bottled water is not safer or healthier than good tap water.  In fact, the brand of water sold on campus, Aquifina, comes from municipal tap water.  A study by the National Resources Defense Council39 found that about a third of bottled water contains substandard levels of substances such as coliform bacteria, arsenic, trihalomethane, chloroform , or bromodichloromethane.

Best Practices

Eliminating bottled water on campus will ensure that the University of Maryland stays on the cutting edge of campus sustainability efforts. So far, many colleges and universities around the country have conducted public education campaigns discouraging bottled water use, but only

36 Hipple, 2009.37 Container Recycling Institute.38 Geis, 2008.39 Olson, 1999.

Washington University in St. Louis40 has completely phased out bottled water sales on campus.  It's beverage distributor, Coca Cola Co., agreed to stop selling bottled water on campus by the end of the Spring 2009 semester. Instead, students drink tap water from cups.  Washington University looked at the details of its contract with Coca Cola and found that it didn’t specifically require that bottled water be sold in vending machines and cafes.41 Bottled water was eliminated from all campus food service establishments except grocery stores by January 1, 2009, and from grocery stores by March 15th, 2009.

Alternatives

The University of Maryland could become a more sustainable campus by eliminating bottled water sales. Instead, it could install triple-filtered water dispensing equipment at its cafes, convenience stores, and the Stamp Student Union food court.  This equipment will create a convenient and palatable alternative to bottled water.  Students could bring reusable bottles or purchase a cup with their meal.  Filtration equipment would make tap water more palatable and allow Dining Services to gradually phase out bottled water sales.

Costs/Issues

Dining Services would face considerable financial and other challenges in this endeavor.  In the Fall 2008 semester, Dining Services' revenue from sales of bottled water totaled $114,163.42 Purchasing triple-filtration systems for all 11 campus cafes, 5 convenience stores, and the Stamp Student Union's food court would cost $15,300.43  Another hurdle is the University's contract with Pepsi.  Pepsi is an exclusive provider of bottled water and fountain beverages on campus.  Bottled beverages other than water, such as milk, juice, and soft drinks, need not be purchased from Pepsi, although Pepsi products must account for 75% of displayed beverages in campus cafes and convenience stores.44  So, if bottled water were to be eliminated, Dining Services may have to stock additional Pepsi products to compensate.  Dining Services also strives to meet the demands of their customers.  Bottled water sells well because customers enjoy its portability and convenience.

These challenges are considerable, though not insurmountable.  In the 1970s, the University of Maryland stopped selling cigarettes in campus convenience stores.  Like bottled water, cigarettes were popular and produced considerable revenue.  However, at this time the health risks associated with smoking were becoming increasingly well-documented.  Cigarette sales were ceased because the University felt a moral imperative not to encourage unhealthy behavior on campus.  Today, the University has made a commitment to environmental sustainability.  It should honor this commitment by eliminated bottled water sales and finding other revenue sources for Dining Services. Phasing out bottled water sales after filtration systems are installed would give consumers time to adjust to these changes, as well as allowing Dining Services time to adjust to the loss of bottled water revenue.  Selling reusable bottles and cups could also help Dining Services maintain their bottom line. Beverage contracts are also renegotiated periodically 40 Daues, 2008.41 Howard, 2009.42 Hipple, 2009.43 These systems cost about $900 each. (Thompson, 2009).44 Hipple, 2009.

and it is important to keep in mind that the University is allowing Pepsi the privilege of selling on their campus. To keep this privilege, Pepsi must adhere to guidelines established by the university, including honoring its commitment to sustainability.

Recommendation

Dining Services should carefully examine its contract with Pepsi to determine options that are already available for reducing and eliminating bottled water sales. When the contract is renegotiated, Dining Services should ensure that it is not locked into an agreement to stock bottled water.

As bottled water is phased out of cafes, convenience stores, and the Stamp Student Union food court, water filtration devices should be installed, allowing customers to dispense water into reusable bottles or purchase a cup. Phasing out bottled water will remove plastic from the waste stream and show students, faculty, staff, and visitors that the University of Maryland is committed to campus sustainability.

Key Information Sources

Container Recycling Institute. Plastic Recycling Rates. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://www.container-recycling.org/plastic_rates.htm

Daues, J. (2008). University to end sales of bottled water on campus. Washington University in St. Louis Record. Retrieved May 7, 2009 from http://record.wustl.edu/news/page/normal/13006.html

Geis, E. (2008). Rising Sales of Bottled Water Trigger Strong Reaction from U.S. Conservationists. International Herald Tribune, 19 Mar. 2008.

Hipple, B. Personal Interview. 27 Mar. 2009.

Howard, D. Email to author. 3 Apr. 2009.

Kramer, L. (2008). Eliminating Bottled Water Sales at Washington University by January 2009. Report prepared for Dining Services Committee, Washington University at St. Louis.

Olson, E.D. (1999). Bottled Water: Pure Drink or Pure Hype? Natural Resources Defense Council.

Thompson, G. Personal Interview. 10 Feb. 2009.

MEMO 37: Plastic Bags

TO: Linda Clement FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public Policy RE: Plastic Bags

Current Status on Campus

The University Book Center gives away about 175,000-200,000 plastic bags to customers each year. 45 Americans consume about 100 billion plastic bags each year, the production of which requires about 12 million barrels of oil.46 Since plastics have only been around for about 150 years, the time it takes for plastics to degrade can only be estimated. However, most environmentalists, scientists, and manufacturers generally agree that complete degradation can take up to 1000 years.47 Because plastics are extremely lightweight, it is easy for plastic bags to blow away and eventually end up in waterways. According to the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy, birds, sea turtles, and marine mammals can swallow debris including plastic bags, interfering with their ability to eat, breathe, and swim.48

The Book Center recently ordered several hundred reusable bags to offer to customers as an alternative to plastic bags. The Book Center will sell the reusable bags for $1.49 each.49 Barnes & Noble has a contract to operate the University Book Center and has recently been awarded a new contract. The company is losing money on the current contract, and therefore, finding ways to save money is a priority for the store.

Best Practices

The New York University (NYU) bookstores have a “Say It -- No Bag, Thanks!” campaign to reduce plastic bag use. The campaign encourages students to either refuse a plastic bag or purchase a canvas bag from the bookstore. At the checkout counter, customers are asked whether they would like a bag with their purchase. If the customer chooses not to use a bag, they are given a wooden token worth five cents, equal to the cost of a bag, which they can place in one of four bins, each of which corresponds to a non-profit environmental organization. The store then donates five cents to the customer’s chosen organization. Customers can also choose to purchase a canvas bag for $2, of which the Bookstore donates $1 to the customer’s chosen organization. According to NYU Bookstores, since starting the program, the number of plastics bags used per year has decreased from 300,000 to about 125,000.50

45 Gore, M. Personal Interview. 4 Mar. 200946 NRDC. (2008). NRDC Lauds Passage of New York City Council Legislation Requiring Groceries, Retailers to Provide Plastic Bag Recycling for Consumers. http://www.nrdc.org/media/2008/080109.asp47 Knight, Matthew. (2007). Plastic bags fly into environmental storm. CNN. http://edition.cnn.com/2007/TECH/11/14/fsummit.climate.plasticbags/index.html48 U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. (2004). Preliminary Report of the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy. Chapter 18: Reducing Marine Debris. http://www.oceancommission.gov/documents/prelimreport/chapter18.pdf49 Gore, M. Personal Communication. 28 Apr. 2009.50 NYU Bookstores. http://www.bookstores.nyu.edu/green.html

The Colorado State University (CSU) bookstore recently implemented a “Bring Your Own Bag” campaign that encourages students to bring their own bags or purchase a reusable bag for $1. The bookstore provided a free reusable bag to every student who reserved textbooks for the fall 2008 semester and did not provide plastic bags during the spring 2009 rush period.51

Alternatives

The Book Center could expand on its recent decision to sell reusable bags to discourage plastic bag use. This could include an informational campaign to encourage students to bring their own bags or to carry out purchases in their backpacks using a slogan modeled after the NYU or CSU campaigns. An important component of this type of strategy would be training checkout staff to ask customers whether they would like a bag as opposed to automatically placing purchases in bags.

There are at least two incentive strategies that the Book Center could use to encourage students to bring their own bags. One option would be to give students a discount for bringing their own bag (or just for declining a plastic bag), with the discount equal to the cost of the bag. A second option would be a program modeled after NYU’s campaign where the Book Center would donate money, equal to the cost of a bag, to an organization or set of organizations that students help choose. The money could also go towards a “sustainability fund” for projects on campus.

A final possible action would be charging students for the cost of the plastic bag, which would act as a disincentive to plastic bag use. This option would also have the benefit of saving the Book Center money, assuming the change would not be reflected in prices. However, given that the cost of the bag is so small compared to the value of most purchases, this strategy might not have much success unless coupled with an information campaign.

Costs/Issues

Given that Barnes & Noble is losing money on the current contract, it would be difficult to implement any measure that would increase costs. Any strategy to reduce plastic bag use will depend on behavioralchange on the part of students. Shoplifting is a significant concern for the Book Center, and the store’s policy during rush periods is to put every purchase into a bag. Recommendations

The Book Center should commit to significantly reduce the use of plastic bags by expanding on its recent decision to sell reusable bags. The first step should be training checkout staff to ask customers whether they would like a bag as opposed to automatically placing purchases in bags.This should be combined with an informational campaign and possibly an incentive for students to bring their own bags. The Book Center should also consider setting a goal for reducing plastic bag use and report on progress towards that meeting that goal.

51 Colorado State University. http://www.today.colostate.edu/story.aspx?id=235

135

MEMO 38: Local Food Procurement

TO: Linda Clement FROM: Environmental Policy Workshop, School of Public PolicyRE: Local Food Procurement

Current Status on Campus

Dining Services at the University of Maryland provides roughly 5 million meals per year to 7,000 students with meal plans plus guests. Most food is procured via contracts with two distributors – U.S. Foodservice and Coastal Sunbelt Produce. The notable exception to the just-in-time style food distribution are the tomatoes and herbs grown atop the Diner.52 This memo examines food procurement on campus, describes how Dining Services and the entire campus community could benefit from additional local food procurement and offers ideas for expanding local food awareness on-campus.

Without guidance or requests from Dining Services, food distributors will likely purchase the lowest cost food items to meet the University’s menu needs. Although this reduces costs for Dining Services, there are externalized costs to society unaccounted for in the price of food including greenhouse gas emissions related to the distance food travels before consumption. For instance, the average food item travels 2,400 miles before consumption, which can require more energy than the food item actually provides.53 Moreover, an opportunity cost for Dining Services associated with buying “long-distance food” is failing to support Maryland’s agricultural community; investing in local agriculture makes the local culture, including farming, more sustainable.

Dining Services must be recognized for its effort in supporting local food. Presently, Dining Services purchases much of its food from within 500 miles including Delmarva chickens, bread, and milk (supplied in-part by UMD cows) and it labels the origin of produce (e.g., Maryland apples). Dining Services also has plans to expand production of tomatoes and herbs on the Diner and potentially produce food at a University-owned farm in Howard County. The biggest deterrent to expanding local food procurement is a lack of demand from students. If Dining Services is going to realize the benefits of local food, then student interest in and demand for local food must first increase. sBest Practices

Local food programs have been successful at institutions of higher education because most food on campuses is selected by a centralized department and food systems can be useful for teaching about community, economics and the environment. Cornell University Dining Services purchases 20 percent of its food locally and has a bold definition of local limited to 100 miles.54

52 Personal Communications. Bart Hipple and Joe Mullineaux. March, 2009.53 Pimentel D, Williamson S, Alexander C E, Gonzelez-Pagan O, Kontak C and Mulkey SE (2008).  Reducing energy inputs in the US food system.  Human Ecology: 36 (459–471).

136

U.C. Berkeley and the University of Michigan also have strong local food programs. For example, U.C. Berkeley has an alliance with the Bay Area Buy Fresh, Buy Local organization and it has agreed to obtain a minimum of 10 percent of the University’s food locally.55 The notable quality that both of these universities share, and which the University of Maryland should learn from, is communication of local food efforts. Both the University of Michigan and U.C. Berkeley list local foods on their Dining Services website while Maryland does not.56 The University of Michigan posts local food available in its dining halls while U.C. Berkeley lists the farms it is purchasing from.

Alternatives55 University of California, Berkeley, Cal Dining http://caldining.berkeley.edu/farmer_profiles.html56 University of Michigan, Housing. http://www.housing.umich.edu/dining/freshmi.html

1 EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=min_measure&min_measure_id=42 Tyler, R. and B. Faucette. 2005. Organic BMPs used for Stormwater Management—Filter Media Test Results from Private Certification Program Yield Predictable Performance, U.S. Composting Council 13 th Annual Conference and Trade Show, January 2005, San Antonio, Texas.3 Alexander, R. 2003. Standard Specifications for Compost for Erosion/Sediment Control, developed for the Recycled Materials Resource Center , University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire. Available at [www.alexassoc.net].; Faucette, B. and M. Ruhlman. 2004. Stream Bank Stabilization Utilizing Compost. BioCycle, January 2004, page 24. 4 EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=min_measure&min_measure_id=45 USEPA. 1998. An Analysis of Composting as an Environmental Remediation Technology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W), EPA530-R-98-008, April 1998.6 Risse, M. and B. Faucette. 2001. Compost Utilization for Erosion Control, University of Georgia, Cooperative Extension Service, Athens, Georgia.7 EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Compost Blankets http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton=detail&bmp=118&minmeasure=4 8 EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPS – Filter Socks. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton=detail&bmp=120&minmeasure=4 9 EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Compost Filter Berms. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton=detail&bmp=119&minmeasure=410 EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Compost Filter Berms. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=browse&Rbutton=detail&bmp=119&minmeasure=4; USEPA. 1998. An Analysis of Composting as an Environmental Remediation Technology. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Solid Waste and Emergency Response (5305W), EPA530-R-98-008, April 1998.11 EPA – Stormwater Menu of BMPs – Construction Site Stormwater Runoff Control. http://cfpub.epa.gov/npdes/stormwater/menuofbmps/index.cfm?action=min_measure&min_measure_id=412 Faucette, B. and M. Risse. 2002. Controlling Erosion with Compost and Mulch. BioCycle, June 2002, pages 26–28.13Gold Leaf Group. http://www.goldleafgrp.com/ 14 Ansari, Azadeh. “Can ‘biochar’ save the planet?” CNN.com. updated 10:56AM EDT;Tuesday March 31, 2009. http://www.cnn.com/2009/TECH/science/03/30/biochar.warming.energy/index.html15 Interview with Lucy Coggin, horticulturist as Lewis Ginter Botanical Garden in Richmond, Virginia16 A Biological Tool for Reducing Input Costs. Carbon Char Group. http://www.carbonchar.com/plant-performance 17 Whitford, Ben. “Farming with biochar could produce better crops and combat climate change.” Plenty Magazine. Posted on August 21, 2008 at 10:00AM.

137

One tool used by Cornell Dining Services that UM Dining Services could adopt is an annual local food dinner supplied exclusively with seasonal, local food.

UM Dining Services currently hosts an annual Crab Fest (crabs presumably from the Chesapeake Bay) in the fall semester. Given that this event coincides with the fall produce harvest, Dining Services could easily seek out other Maryland food items to make it a true local meal. Because of the size and popularity of the Crab Fest, Dining Services (with the help of the University) would need only to develop a concurrent educational program to capture the attention of students and promote local food on campus.

Costs/Issues

Local food typically comes at a premium, but additional costs can be absorbed by reducing waste and investing in Maryland agriculture. To accommodate for the variability in local food, Dining Services could alter menus to include food items that are in season. To better understand how local procurement can be reconciled with current distributors, Dining Services could integrate local food into special campus catering events (e.g., Crab Fest). Additionally, Dining Services could participate in Community Supported Agriculture via a one-year contract with a local farm as a pilot project to test how local food procurement could expand on-campus.

Recommendations

The actions Dining Services has taken to-date regarding local food procurement are commendable and should stimulate make further progress with an increase in student awareness and demand for local food. Local food procurement aligns very closely with the University’s strategic plan and Dining Services should actively seek a path to making local food a value on campus. Increasing student awareness is the first step. Clear action items for Dining Services to increase awareness include holding special events with a local food theme (e.g., Crab Fest), posting on the UM Dining Services website where food comes from (e.g., partner farms) and establishing various local food indicators (e.g., what is considered local, what percentage of local food we are striving to procure).

The University of Maryland has an excellent local food program, but it needs to actively promote its efforts to get students’ attention and support. Once students see local food is an issue important to the University, students will be more likely to adopt it as a personal value.

http://www.plentymag.com/features/2008/08/smoking_grass_print.php18 “Using soil to lock up carbon could help offset global warming.” PhysOrg.com. May 14, 2007. http://www.physorg.com/news98375815.html19 “Discovery Science Reveals Australian Technology As Best Carbon Outcome For Waste.” BEST Energies, Inc. January 1, 2009. http://www.bestenergies.com/pressreleases/BESTenergies_pressrelease_20090101.pdf20 A Biological Tool for Reducing Input Costs. Carbon Char Group http://www.carbonchar.com/plant-performance 21 Whitford, Ben.

138

139